On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Richard Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Chandler > > > > Gabor’s patch seems uncontroversial to me and the new behaviour matches > many other applications using unix getopt. > > > > Could you say why you think it is a mistake? > Because I think it is better to have a consistent syntax. While it matches some uses of getopt, it doesn't match the prevalent commandline flag syntax of newer command line tools where short options are single '-' and single character (and can be combined), but long options have '--', cannot be combined, and require an '='s. I don't think this makes sense as a short option as well, and I would prefer we have a single unambiguous spelling of the long option. We have started trying to consistently use this long-option syntax for flags which are very high-level flags completely handled by the clang driver such as '--target='. I would like to see us get more consistent in this single spelling rather than less consistent. The deviations from it should be to preserve necessary compatibility. > > Do you object to relaxing the mandatory ‘=’ or allowing both single and > double – versions or both? > > Both.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
