On 13 Dec 96 at 8:57, Dave Wolfe wrote:
> But what's the value of identical or even similar syntax when the
> semantics are different?
I agree identical syntax would be confusing, but I don't think
similar syntax necessarily would.
> configuration list password option=setting
> newconfig list password
>
> do somewhat similar things on two different MLMs, or that:
Somewhat similar, in the broad definition of "somewhat". However,
they are very dissimilar in that the first one can change one setting
without harming others, while the second one will change ALL options
even when you only want to change one.
> configuration list password option=setting
> configuration list password option=setting
>
> do somewhat similar (but in actuality different) things on two different
> MLMs? Where there is true duplication of functionality, duplication of
> i/f is desirable (l&f issues aside), but when functionality differs, a
> distinct i/f is desirable.
The "option=setting" entries will nearly always be different between
two MLMs, and as such I could live with the command name being
different too.
However, that doesn't mean we need to throw out the general
structure of putting the command name, list name, password, option
name and new value one one line, which I think is useful.
We don't make list owners retrieve the entire subscriber list, edit
it to add or remove someone and then resubmit the entire thing!
- Alan
----
Alan Millar amillar@bolis.com
Owner, System Admin http://www.bolis.com
Ask me about Internet mailing list services at Bolis.com
Play an accordion, go to prison. It's the law.
|
|
