Based on what you said, I like a lot as is. Thanks for explaining it. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Lex Spoon <sp...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Johnson<br...@google.com> wrote: > > Because it's easy to bikeshed: can we make the -soyc (-soycExtra) flag > more > > like -style in that it has multiple values rather than having two > separate > > flags? Or is there a rationale for this style that I'm missing. > > When Bob V's permutation control changes land, we want to make all of > this > > sort of stuff fall into the category of deferred binding properties, so > that > > you could, for example, create one permutaiton with style PRETTY, another > > with style DETAILED, etc. Having the -soyc flag follow a name/value > pattern > > would make it more amenable to this change. > > There is no immediate use case for the detailed information. However, > I hated to remove all that code when we might need it later. Thus, I > left -soyc as the normal use case, and added -XsoycExtra for those use > cases that might conceivably need it in the future. It's not a > documented option, and it's not listed when you run the compiler with > -help. > > How does that sound, Bruce and Kathrin (and anyone else interested)? > > It seems very helpful if "-soyc" is the only option users need to > supply. There is even talk of having the -soyc option go ahead and > run the dashboard generator, thus giving you final HTML output without > needing to add the second step. > > > On a related note, I agree with Kathrin that it's not precisely > "detailed" or "extra" information that this flag gives you. It's > different information, different enough that you can't compute one > from the other. I named it "extra" in a hurry. Can anyone think of > anything that would be less misleading? > > > -Lex > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
