From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: Using 'system*' instead of 'system' in 'guix environment'
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:32:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ=Rwfb6L5=ghFqSZhCA9MpEM2q1wDZGKi=-Vij2h4uYYtw4OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87io6iqhbt.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<87ziztyext.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CAJ=RwfaGBKB1K+kukEXGQTA5eBH_Rov3qJL0esgBu=U0scjyDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87vbahpfrn.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CAJ=RwfbpEigt3MRj-wadn=MgXus=wvMPFhbuGnJyh0QAV5Rw1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a8rt73dc.fsf@T420.taylan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56232)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dthompson2@worcester.edu>) id 1ZkE8R-00050a-Jx
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:34:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dthompson2@worcester.edu>) id 1ZkE7N-0003y7-Hf
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:33:39 -0400
Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]:34614)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dthompson2@worcester.edu>) id 1ZkE7N-0003us-32
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:32:33 -0400
Received: by ykdg206 with SMTP id g206so53855286ykd.1
	for <guix-devel@gnu.org>; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87a8rt73dc.fsf@T420.taylan>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: =?UTF-8?B?VGF5bGFuIFVscmljaCBCYXnEsXJsxLEvS2FtbWVy?= <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Taylan Ulrich Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer
<taylanbayirli@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wro=
te:
>>
>>> I guess we must still support -E for compatibility.  Probably it should
>>> do an implicit =E2=80=98sh -c=E2=80=99?
>>
>> This introduces implementation issues.  What if a user provides both a
>> -E command *and* a command after '--'?  What's the sane thing to do?
>>
>> I also don't feel strongly that we need to keep flags around for
>> compatibility this early in the game, given that we are alpha software
>> and such.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I thought it would be nice to keep also for convenience...
>
> -E 'foo' is somewhat nicer than -- sh -c 'foo'.

But this is not a very common case (citing my own personal experience
and sudo, ssh, and other programs that use this pattern), and now we
have to deal with precedence rules in the argument parser.  If we have
to keep -E, then I would rather not implement the '--' stuff.

- Dave