On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 23:03 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Oh, btw, is there any purpose in listing a number in front of each > type?
Not really. I did that because I wanted a header and because I had no idea how many of those types existed and I was too lazy to count. > It makes it look like one can pass that number instead of the > type name, however it doesn't work, and I don't think it should as the > numbering isn't stable and could change with any update of the script. True. > Can't we simplify the output and simply print the list of type names? <shrug> If you want.
