The problem was that, as implemented, they didn't actually move directories at all, but rather, they moved the contents of a directory to another directory.
That was an example of the mixed expectations. Some expected to specify the parent folder and some expected to specify a new directory name/location (but not the parent).Do you mean you want to both copy/move and change the name in the same command? That wasn't the suggestion. The commands are for copying and moving directories, not renaming them. There is already a command to rename things.
If RENAME were sufficient, MOVEDIR would not be necessary. After all, that is what the unix mvdir does: "Moves (renames) a directory." Yet, it was still suggested. While removal of all/most of the confusions and the meeting of sufficient expectations may be possible, it might take more time/work than was available for this version and, given Rex's comment, perhaps more work than it was worth. Those are my guesses and the best I can offer.If you want to change one directory's name and location, just use RENAME.
Can't we already do that by "move /s foo\* c:\"?On the other hand was a MOVEDIR/COPYDIR that expected you to name the whole destination path including the resulting DIR's name, so that a "MOVEDIR foo c:" resulted in all files from foo in the root dir of C:, not in C:\foo.
These are all non-standard. Here you have the standard ones: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcuix.htmlIt depends on the unix variant. Here are a couple:
Beta testers voted for a MOVEDIR/COPYDIR behaviour like you get from Explorer: Name the DIR to move/copy, name the destination and presto. Everything else, e.g. a rename, could have been handled by switches, if not separate commands.
The suggestion on Uservoice does say "manipulate directories", not manipulate their contents. And my first comment on uservoice says, "I often just fire up Windows Explorer. Note that I want to copy/move the directories, not their contents." And there were several threads on the forum discussing this. Unfortunately, the links to the threads that are in the comments on Uservoice don't seem to work anymore, but I expect the threads wouldn't be hard to find, if they still exist. Since there was ample discussion in those threads of what was desired (with many examples over many years), it seemed unnecessary to give a detailed spec in the suggestion. No one in any of those threads ever requested some other sort of behavior. It is sad that people would discuss whether something was implemented as I wanted it without asking me.On the beta forum, Rex said that as far as he understood, he had implemented it exactly the way the original poster wanted it. I went back to uservoice and read David Marcus' original post, and indeed I found that Rex's understanding was not precluded.
Since there was ample discussion in those threads of what was desired (with many examples over many years), it seemed unnecessary to give a detailed spec in the suggestion.
I'd do it myself, but it isn't so easy to do well in a btm, and would probably be a good deal of work to do in a separate app. Plus, it isn't that hard to do in Explorer, so it is hard to work up the motivation.