| 1 |
On 07/01/2016 05:45 AM, Francesco Riosa wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> thanks for your continuous work, just an implementation detail, it may |
| 4 |
> be possible to avoid a new option reusing the current autounmask one? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> instead of |
| 7 |
> --autounmask [ y | n ] |
| 8 |
> --autounmask-only [ y | n ] |
| 9 |
> --autounmask-write [ y | n ] |
| 10 |
> --autounmask-continue [ y | n ] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> something like: |
| 13 |
> --autounmask [ y | n | only | write | continue] |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> especially if these options make no sense used together |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's an interesting idea, but my experience is that boolean options |
| 18 |
lead to simpler code, so I would prefer to stick with booleans. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Thanks, |
| 21 |
Zac |
Archives