On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:35:36PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I may be biased as every time I think about this one, the first one > that comes to my mind is how "grep -h" (not "git grep", but GNU > grep) behaves. Yes, "-h" means something else, but by itself, the > command does not make sense, and "ls-remote -h" is an exception to > the rule: most sane commands do not have a sensible semantics when > they take only "-h" and nothing else. And even for ls-remote it is > true only when you try to be extra lazy and do not say which remote > you are asking.
Yeah, I have to admit "grep -h" is a lot more compelling, since it matches normal grep. And I've used "grep -h" many times without thinking about it, simply because the rule just falls out naturally there (there's nothing possible to do without a regex argument, so we'd show the usage either way). > And that is why I think "'cmd -h" and nothing else consistently > gives help" may overall be positive in usability, than a rule that > says "'cmd -h' is for short-help unless -h means something else for > the command". Yeah, I was shooting more for "let's avoid assigning -h to things". But that's not really possible if we want to be consistent with upstream grep, which is probably more important. I think you've convinced me. -Peff
