cvs commit: ALFS syntax.txt

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Sat Apr 6 06:47:26 PST 2002

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:45:29PM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> > The problem is a big difference between <options> from <copy>
> > and <param> here.
> I know, but personally i don't see it as being that much of a big
> difference.
> > Here, its content is just appended, independently of parser and the way
> > it's implementing the handlers.
> Ok, Well..
> The only tags that an implementation should just append is <execute>,
> <make> and <configure>.  Those are the _only_ tags, afiak.  So, do we
> make an exeception in this regard?  Or just use <parameter>?
> Id prefer to just use <option> and make sure we are clear on it's proper
> usage then mixing up <parameter> and <option>.  I just really like
> <option> over <parameter>, that's all.

It's just that the content of <option> is something we created ourselves
- "archive" doesn't have to be called "archive", it could be called
"preserve_links_and_file_attributes_and_copy_directories_recursively" ;).
Or "plafaacdr" ;).

But the content of <parameter>s (in "configure" for example) are
parameters passed to "configure" program. They are _not_ part of
the syntax, and can't be changed.

I don't know, these two things are pretty different IMHO, but I won't
beat this issue anymore :). I could live with just one element too. :)

> Dunno.. hopefully you will all reply agreeing with me and making my
> simple... [ya right! ;)]

Heh, you wish! ;)


Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list