>> |I have no problem with changing it to -r. -f seems a bit wrong to me,
>> |as it might read as a file. And in the future we might want to implement
>> |the ability to take full filename (with path), in which case it would
>> |make sense to use -f for that.
>
> You could also use a long option for that without a one-letter option,
> like --file-path or such, so reserving a one-letter option for a future,
> hypothetical use is not really a stopper in my opinion. In consequence,
> I think that that it is fine to just use -f/--filenode.
Yep. Also, the -f option could be overloaded by guessing whether is
associated argument is a number or a path…
> Any objections or better suggestions from other folks here?
--
Fabien.
