Add optimize as an alias of optimise

[GraysonTinker]

This PR allows the use of both nix store optimise and nix store optimize via a new linguistic alias type.

Continuation of #11577 with the trivial merge conflict resolved and formatting/shellcheck fixed. Previously received 2 positive reviews and then didn't get any attention.

Closes #11577. Closes #1902.

Motivation

Context

---

Add 👍 to pull requests you find important.

The Nix maintainer team uses a GitHub project board to schedule and track reviews.

[tomberek]

Will this affect tab-completion... making it less effective, stopping short of completing the whole thing?

[GraysonTinker]

Will this affect tab-completion... making it less effective, stopping short of completing the whole thing?

Hm, good question, I didn't think to test that. Let me check.

[GraysonTinker]

@tomberek Nope, this doesn't appear in tab completion at all.

[edolstra]

I'm a bit "meh" on this since it seems better in general to have a single canonical name for a command to avoid user confusion.

It might be more useful to use the Suggestions API to detect misspelled command names, in the same way we do for misspelled attribute names.

[GraysonTinker]

I'm a bit "meh" on this since it seems better in general to have a single canonical name for a command to avoid user confusion.

I'm not sure that adding this alias would significantly change that, given that optimise is still the only version referenced in the manual, online documentation, completions, etc. I think that the idea of a secondary alias for ease-of-use would be understandable to users.

As a parallel, I don't believe there been any confusion with nix-store --optimise vs. --optimize.

It might be more useful to use the Suggestions API to detect misspelled command names, in the same way we do for misspelled attribute names.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this already occurs:

$ nix store optimize
error: 'optimize' is not a recognised command
       Did you mean optimise?

[toastal]

I got bit by this again today. No use fighting over spelling if supporting both is trivial.

[xokdvium]

The test could be refactored to be more clear, but I suppose the existing the test is already pretty ugly.

It seems like this request s quite common, so no use fighting over it (plus nix-store already has this). LGTM