Make "rename" command an alias for "mv"?

[Robert Widhopf-Fenk]

On Monday, October 24, 2005 at 09:40:47, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Robert Widhopf-Fenk <hack at robf.de> writes:
> 
> > I was wondering why there are three commands which can do
> > renames and if there was any special voodoo in "rename" and
> > "move"
> 
> People used to unix's "mv" command like to have a single command for
> this, but for other people, "move" a file and "rename" a file are
> two distinct operations (see how you rename a file and how you move
> it to a distinct directory in a graphical file manager for example -
> and remember that bzr is supposed to be usable on Windows and
> therefore by windows users).

They are different, i.e. "rename a doc" will fail if doc is a
directory where "mv a doc" will succeed, so keeping "rename"
makes some sense to me but IMHO "move" should be an alias to
"mv".  
  
> I've teached the basis of unix to people in 1st year of engineering
> school, and most students had difficulties to understand the unix
> "mv" unification. Martin considered this "mv" was mostly nocive and
> did a separate "move" and "rename". I'm glad that the unixish
> version is also available.

Me too. ;-)

Bye Robert