On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 01:21:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > I'm ok with -m/--member as well (like with --role only one role can be > specified per switch instance so member, not membership, the later meaning, > at least for me, the collective). > > That -m doesn't match --role-to is no worse than -g not matching --role, a > short option seems worthwhile, and the -m (membership) mnemonic should be > simple to pick-up. > > I don't see the addition of "-name" to the option name being beneficial. > > Yes, the standard doesn't use the "TO" prefix for "ROLE" - but taking that > liberty for consistency here is very appealing and there isn't another SQL > clause that it would be confused with.
+1 for "member". It might not be perfect, but IMO it's the clearest option. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
