Comment 3 for bug 479483
Revision history for this message
| Nikodemus Siivola (nikodemus) wrote Re: [Bug 479483] Re: wanted: shallow recursiveness for :FORCE keyword | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
2009/12/21 Robert P. Goldman <email address hidden>:
> How about keeping the argument as :FORCE and making it accept :recursive
> or :shallow as an argument? Then keep t as a synonym for :recursive?
>
> Also, what about making it :deep versus :shallow or :recursive versus
> :immediate?
The reason why I prefer :FORCE-RECURSIVE and :FORCE-SHALLOW is that there is less room for mistake, and the meaning is always clear -- no wondering about what T means, and a clear upgrade path.
Also, if we support T, :RECURSIVE and :SHALLOW, we should signal an error for all others -- otherwise it's far too easy to accidentally pass in :SYSTEM or similar bogus argument and have it do the wrong thing.
No biggie, though. I will not cry if we go your route.