I've grown old of ddh md5 file. There's nothing wrong with that, just like git, md5 would indicate an action, but md5 isn't an action, ddh is the utility performing the hashing action. Which may even confuse me at times.
Another factor other than confusion is flexibility. Currently, this limits only one selected hash per invocation (though optional) and forces the selected hash to be at the start of the command-line, making invocations like ddh file md5 further confusing.
That's why doing the obvious syntax as ddh --md5 file seem like a more interesting (for 2.0?) to me, though losing the existing syntax may trouble some (or me, who knows).
Pros:
Flexibility - May allow for multiple hashes to be used per invocation.
Clarity - Clear notation that hash is a type of option, not action.
Parsing - CLI will be free of forcing the hash type as the first argument.
Cons:
Losing syntax - Losing the current syntax may a negative thing for some.
I've grown old of
ddh md5 file. There's nothing wrong with that, just like git,md5would indicate an action, butmd5isn't an action,ddhis the utility performing the hashing action. Which may even confuse me at times.Another factor other than confusion is flexibility. Currently, this limits only one selected hash per invocation (though optional) and forces the selected hash to be at the start of the command-line, making invocations like
ddh file md5further confusing.That's why doing the obvious syntax as
ddh --md5 fileseem like a more interesting (for 2.0?) to me, though losing the existing syntax may trouble some (or me, who knows).Pros:
Cons: