I originally disliked the change but failed to come up with a strong technical argument and other folks seemed all happy.
Maybe we should come up with a draft on what we want for options? I don't have a strong opinion and am fine either way. Cheers, Renato On 11 Mar 2015 21:16, "Chandler Carruth" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
