Stupid bash question

[Khoa Ton]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 00:01 -0800, Dean S. Messing wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> : On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 21:29 -0800, Dean S. Messing wrote:
> 
>> : [1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnustandards/gnustandards/standards.texi
>> : 
>>
>> Thanks, Ralf, for enlightening me.  I wrote "new coding standards",
>> above, in response to Stepan Kasal's remark that "GNU Coding Standards
>> now declare ...".  I suppose the latter is literally true even if the
>> Standard was defined in 1992.
>>
>> Of course, with this new knowledge, I will feel as free as a bird to
>> boldly ignore the Standard (in this respect) seeing how several other
>> prominent linux executables (busybox, lvm, dump/restore, halt, to name
>> a few) have been blithely ignoring it for more than a decade.  ½:-)
 >
> Well, of cause it's everybody's freedom to ignore the "insights" others
> have accumulated over many years. But also consider, there are good
> reasons why these recommendations exist and why some people consider
> programs changing their behavior upon program name to be mal-designed.
> 
> Ralf

I would appreciate explanations or pointers to the reasons why some
people consider programs changing their behavior upon program name to be
mal-designed.

I find busybox's use of this mechanism interesting, and can't think
of how this can be a more than a slight nuisance to the uninitiated.
For statically linked executables in disk space critical environments,
busybox's use of this mechanism is rather elegant.

Regards,
Khoa