Le jeudi 19 novembre 2009 à 13:22 +1100, Trent W. Buck a écrit : > Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Trent W. Buck wrote: > > > > >Florent Becker <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > >>The object of these patches is to add a --dont-frobnicate option for each > > >>--frobnicate option. That way, you can put "command frobnicate" in your > > >>prefs file, and still use --dont-frobnicate when you need the default > > >>behaviour. > > > > > >I'm glad argument consistency is getting some attention[...] > > > > They look ok to me as a short-term improvement that may well be > > obsoleted by a proper reorganisation of the command-line flags. > > I agree with that analysis. > > > Trent, are you happy for these patches to be applied? The only > > possible reservation I have is that they introduce yet more > > inconsistent language into the way that command-line arguments are > > negated, and might create more of a legacy to support in future. > > Does anyone else have any opinions on that? > > My only reservations are those you outline above. The support burden > is particularly significant if this goes into the 2.4 release, but the > larger option overhaul (discussed in other threads) doesn't.
I agree with you both on that point, and in hindsight, I should have made the name more coherent. I propose we decide now on a standard negation. I suggest --no-foo (even when foo is a verb). In a very short-term followup patch, I rename all the new flags from that bundle to --no-whatever, and add --no-whatever aliases to all the other negative flags. Then we can start thinking about doing something smarter, which should come with a better abstaction for flags, and so probably after 2.4. I'd still like to see that bundle applied soon, because it's a dependency for more useful stuff like --reverse. Florent _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
