Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:10:24 -0500
Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org>
wrote:
Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
My 2 cents: portability is important, and code conciseness is more
important then having a fancy interface with many possibilities.
Isn't it just redundant/bloat to support both long and short ones?
No.... there are only so many letters of the alphabet and we still
have many long options without letters assigned to them that have
no obvious shortening.
No, if anything I'd drop short options and keep long, but there would
be a lot of pushback.
Does it matter if it works, and several people here can understand it
well enough? Most people didn't even know we did this until today and
we surely didn't hear objections when it went in, so it clearly isn't
that bad...
-Dan
Hmm this was about makepkg right?
makepkg --help | grep '-' | wc -l
24
lowercase + uppercase gives you 52 options.
Right... We have these options without short version (e.g.) --source
--allsource --asroot . Now -r -R -A -s are already used. What would
you choose? the are 52 options but I doubt z,y,x... will ever make sense.
Anyway, this is not being changed. If you can provide a single case
where the old implementation parses options differently than the current
bash implementation, I will be surprised and reward you with a cookie
before fixing it.
This was discussed to death ages ago. Go back and read about it.
Allan
