On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:27:38PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 10 Nov 2002 23:08:21 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
[snip] > Hmm, I don't like too much short names. If it is a unix command that is > run often short names help, fvwm is not run often by hand. I would only > support long names except for the backward compatibility (-d, -f, -s). > You see we already ran out of letters, this is not really necessary. > Do you think a usage line like this helps to understand anything: > > fvwm (2.5.5): usage: fvwm [-d display] [-D] [-f cfgfile] [-c cmd] [-s] [-V] > [-h | -?] [-r] [-i client-id] [-F sm_file] [-I vis-id | -C vis-class] [-l > colors [-L] [-A] [-S] [-N]] > > See also 'xv -reuse', can you understand what was a problem? Hardly, but > at least it uses long descriptive option names. Long names are good. > But I just let you decide what should be the option list of fvwm itself. Actually, I had already written a line about xv as a bad example but removed it :-) That is why the short usage message lists only the short options. It allows you to check which option letters are available - no more: - If you made a typo or forgot the exact option letter, you can quickly check which ones are available. - If the user has no idea what the options do (s)he needs more verbose output anyway and should use "--help". Okay, I will commit a cleaned up version. It cuts down the list of short options that is printed to the ones that are interesting when trying to get it run. It should be readable enough and usefull too. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
