[soraminazuki]

> Half of those examples from git don't even invoke cat

That's because it's a regex search and not relevant to the point at all. What matters is that people use widely advertised features of a popular tool, including sudo and cat. Especially if that feature is the single stated purpose of the tool.

Taking a name of a widely used tool and slapping it on something that doesn't even do what the original was made for isn't a nice thing to do. I don't get why that's controversial to anyone.

> so cat should do one thing

That one thing is con-"cat"-enating files, so to speak. Why should it become something different just to make the name Sudo for Windows appear somehow less misleading?

Also,

    rm out.txt
    for f in *.log; do cat "$f" >> out.txt; done

is a clunky way of concatenating files.

    { for f in *.log; do cat "$f"; done; } | less

Even clunkier.

[soraminazuki]

> "git am" test could've been written as "git am patch1 patch2" instead

This is off topic, but the Git devs were correct in doing `cat pine patch1 | git am`, since the test in question is

    test_expect_success 'am takes patches from a Pine mailbox'

The test requires the mailbox not be split in two, so `git am pine patch1` is out of the question. patch1 is reused across multiple tests, so it makes sense for it to be in separate files. Concatenating is the logical conclusion.

    cat patch1 >> pine
    git am pine

is possible, but why? It's more code and it mutates the contents of files after initial creation, making the tests as a whole slightly harder to reason about.