> > So what you're saying is that the above is significantly better than
> > 
> >     $FSCMD_$FSTYPE $ARGS
> > 
> > and
> > 
> >     for i in *_fstyp; do [stuff] ...
> > 
> > Or am I missing something here?
> 
> No you aren't missing anything.
> 
> Furthermore, he is claiming that breaking compatibility with existing
> code and scripts doesn't matter, either, in order to get this
> "improvement".

What about "semantic seperation of command names from the FS on which
they are intended to operate"?


					Regards,
					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.