I noticed there is some inconsistency with the command line options. We have so called 'positive' switches that describe an action/ condition, like --set-default or --allow-conflicts and then we have the so called 'negative' switches that are the opposite of the 'positive' switches. The 'negative' switches are not very consistent. For example we have --dont-allow-conflicts and --no-set-default as counterparts for the aforementioned 'positive' switches.
I think some of them may benefit from a review and some adjusting. Those that describe a negated action should use --dont-something when something is an actiob. In my example --no-set-default could benefit from that.
Of course there are 'negative' options that negate a state, not an action and in that case --no-option works just fine (like for example --no-ssh-cm or --no-summary).
I guess the rule here would be to use --dont-something when something is an action and --no-something when something is a state/entity.
I see some have dual versions, like --dont-allow-conflicts and --no- allow-conflicts. I guess the later was preserved for backward compatibility reasons. Probably a similar thing can be done for --no- set-default, though I don't like the idea of having multiple option aliases, but I understand the need for preserving backward compatibility.
Maybe the --no-something when something is an action, can be slowly deprecated. In the 1st state, they coexist with --dont-something as aliases. In the 2nd stage, they are still supported, but not advertised anymore in the docs or shown by --help. And in the 3rd stage they are removed.
-- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
