On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 05:42:56PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Graham Percival > <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > That's actually precisely why I'm suggesting a > > -p X > > option. People (generally) aren't going to look into the depths > > that's even worse, because people that will want to use this option > won't even understand what it does. It's the same time of idiocy of > Windows' and IE settings: do you want low, medium or high for hardware > acceleration, internet privacy.
gperciva@futoi:~$ gunzip --help Usage: gzip [OPTION]... [FILE]... Compress or uncompress FILEs (by default, compress FILES in-place). [...] -V, --version display version number -1, --fast compress faster -9, --best compress better oh dear. I hope that nobody uses these terrible command-line switches to gzip! At least bzip2 doesn't make this same mistake... oops, no wait, it also has -1 .. -9 options! This is terribly disheartening. I'd better go off and download some pirated tv shows... oh no! Most popular video encoding software has a "quality" setting, too! ok, I guess I'll go drown myself in C programming. Surely gcc wouldn't be stupid enough to provide multiple optimization levels... oh noes! -O -O0 -O1 -O2 -O3 -Os ! I see nothing wrong with providing "easy-to-use" optimization levels, as long as it's possible to "dig down" and find out what they all do. I've happily used -O2 for years without once looking at it. A few months ago, I tried doing some heavy optimizations, so I went and looked at the difference between -O2 and -O3 and what --funsafe-math-optimizations did (I was especially curious because the latter produced incorrect answers for my program!). But I don't see anything dangerous about having -Ox switches in general. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel