Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
> p.s. Those new --check-order --nocheck-order options confuse me.
> When they were added I only took a quick look at the implementation
> rather than the interface (which Bo Borgerson kindly sped up for us).
> Perhaps something like this would be clearer:
>
> --check-order={none,mismatch,unsorted}
> By default --check-order=mismatch is enabled.
>
> I suppose it's too late to change now.
>
Hi Pádraig,
If I remember correctly the three possibilities are effectively severity
levels for an 'out-of-order' exception:
--nocheck-order => SILENT (don't actually check)
[DEFAULT] => WARNING
--check-order => FATAL
For me "mismatch" and "unsorted" aren't obvious keywords, but I can see
how an argument to the --check-order option could be clearer than the
current interface.
Would an _optional_ argument using a scheme like the one you suggested
above be worth providing? I suspect it might actually add to confusion
due to the need for continued support for the current scheme as well,
but it should be possible to allow both:
--nocheck-order => --check-order=none
[DEFAULT] => --check-order=warning
--check-order => --check-order=fatal
Thanks,
Bo
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
