| 1 |
W dniu sob, 03.03.2018 o godzinie 13∶08 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an |
| 5 |
> > > argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, |
| 6 |
> > > and simply not specifying it to disable? |
| 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 |
|
| 21 |
I don't really want to go into this. As far as I'm concerned, I can |
| 22 |
leave defunct '-d' and just check dev profiles unconditionally. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
Archives