On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:16 PM, 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. > The previous state was that we allowed -target blah and --target=blah, but not -target=blah nor --target blah. This new state seems better than that in some ways, but neither is particularly satisfactory. 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 > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
