On 2008-05-28, Allan McRae wrote: > Also, I would find it a bit weird passing only > short options for --noprogressbar and --noconfirm which do not have > short options in pacman which is their eventual target.
. an experienced user will get used to any new options . a new user will always have to refer to the usage or man page so whether they are intuitive or not doesn't really matter, they are whatever they are when viewing usage For example, -e and -o always confuse me and after a year I still have to look at usage to make sure what to use to not extract the the tarball or the opposite. In other words I rely on the usage to guide me constantly for less frequently used options so what ever the options are doesn't matter (to me). It's only the first most used options that have any chance of being intuitive or natural, anything after that usually, in my experience, becomes more and more obscure and requires a lookup. I simply never use longopts anyway, but that just my 2c POV. --markc _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
