| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an |
| 4 |
>> argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, |
| 5 |
>> and simply not specifying it to disable? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> What is wrong is that a number of developers have historically not |
| 8 |
> specified the option and broke stuff. Plus, it's infinitely silly to |
| 9 |
> require people to explicitly specify the option to enable required |
| 10 |
> behavior. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My remark was about syntax, not about semantics. "-d y" and "-d n" |
| 13 |
instead of "-d" and "(nothing)" is a crappy user interface. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Maybe unify things into "--include-profiles=<stable,dev,exp>" (with a |
| 16 |
comma separated list of "stable", "dev", and "exp") or |
| 17 |
"--include-profile-level=<n>" with n=0 for stable, n=1 for stable+dev, |
| 18 |
etc.? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ulrich |
Archives