On Tue, Apr 03 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> Yes, it's more flexible, but what are the real benefits of such
> flexibility? What other commands than tag/restore would truly benefit
> from this? I might add that nobody has asked for such flexibility.

But I do believe it was your patch that introduced the idea of batch
processing of other commands to begin with.  I think you're just turning
my original question to you back on me.  There's no point in adding and
initial flag to the beginning of the line to specify the command to
execute if you have no intention of ever supporting other commands.  Or
vice versa, if you ultimately want to support multiple commands then the
place to do it is in the top level interface, and not in one of the
subcommands.

Ultimately, I think this patch series suffers from being simultaneously
too close to existing functionality (restore), yet tantalizingly close
to a much more generally useful concept of batch command processing.  I
would rather see it go one way or the other rather than add something
fairly redundant in the middle.

jamie.