On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 12:59 +0400, A.Salatov wrote: > No, you correct me if I'm wrong, but when I think about 'settrans' my > mind always going to compare it to 'umount' and I started to think about > a reasons why 'umount' is 'umount' and not 'unmount'. The simplest > reason for it, that I could imagine, it is so because it less typing to > do. You ever try to type 'setrans' instead 'settrans'. If it is not > enough, may be it is beter to have even shorter form, like - 'strans' :) > In this case 's' would actualy stand for "SetTRANSlator", and it OK? Ok, > all this topic is a kinda joke, but with an sense in it as I supose. If > no one would treat it in real, well then it is complitly a joke. :(
It's settrans because it's "set trans". If you want an explanation for "umount", then you're going to start wanting one for "creat". Thomas
