On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 20:12 -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote: > # The following was supposedly scribed by > # Keith Ivey > # on Thursday 16 June 2005 07:46 pm: > > >> Ok. Here's one edge-case which probably involves somebody smart > >> enough to not get stuck in it. Is this really a good argument for > >> perplexing the user the other 99% of the time? > > > >It seems to me that that situation is far more than 1%, more like 99%, > >of the times *when both --foo and --no-foo options are specified*. > > Do you mean to say that 99% of the time (when --foo and --no-foo are > both present) that it is because somebody has an alias with a --foo > flag written into it?
Yes. I've _never_ used a program where I found myself using both --foo and --no-foo on the command line unless I was over-riding an alias. A straw poll of a couple others in the lab indicated that they also have never had occasion (at least that they recall) to type both --foo and --no-foo. I also can't think of a single program where that would be called for in normal use. IMHO if I wrote a program that encouraged that sort of use, I would assume I had poorly designed it and try to fix that issue. And as another point, I doubt the vast majority of people who are using command line interfaces to complex programs are _average_ users. If I have a complex program that users who are not experienced or comfortable with complex sets of command line options need to use, I either create a GUI interface of some kind, or set aup a couple system aliases with the most common options specified. > >Second, what sort of user is going to be typing "--foo --no-foo" > >(or "--no-foo --foo")? If I did run into that sort of user I'd be > >mystified as to what they intended > > If it's not clear what '--no-foo --foo' means then it wouldn't impact > you either way I write it? > > The purpose of a negated option is (in all of the usages that I have > seen) to reset any hard-coded or config-file variable. And is why, if I want a user to set a value, I use 'foo=i' or 'foo=s' or such. That seems far more natural to me, and has worked quite well in my experience. What user, who might be confused by --foo --no-foo handling, is going to even _know_ that --no-foo is an option?!? -- Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Massachusetts General Hospital
