Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal: New way to add commandline options
Erik Hofman a écrit : Hi, I was thinking, FlightGear is already able to handle way more options than advertised when running fgfs -h -v How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line options in favor of the --prop:prop=value method and make sure all of them are explained in a document rather than the help message. As a temporary measure we could make sure the current options are still available, but not made public in the help message. How do you all feel about that? I don't see the real benefit of this naming change. I rather see the burden of changing fgrun. And there are options that are not reduced to a property assignment. Why not documenting current options in a text file ? -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal: New way to add commandline options
Frederic Bouvier wrote: I don't see the real benefit of this naming change. I rather see the burden of changing fgrun. And there are options that are not reduced to a property assignment. True, those should be kept. But the main reason I started this was because: 1. We have at least two options for boolean assignment 2. We have more than two options for string assignments When using the --prop: method this will be reduced to just one option with one of several arguments. 3. The options.xml (and associated language files) are rather hard to maintain. Not to mention the fact that the non English versions are hopelessly out of date. 4. I think the --prop: method would make utilities like fgrun a lot easier to maintain since it can maintain a simple database of properties and it's arguments instead of a lot of different options. But it's not like I want to push this all of a sudden. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal: New way to add commandline options
Erik Hofman wrote: How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line options in favor of the --prop:prop=value method and make sure all of them are explained in a document rather than the help message. I see three reasons opposing this idea: 1.) I'm not sure but I assume you can't use : inside a command line option on certain platforms (Windows). 2.) Too often people want to do 'command -h [-v] | grep -i keyword' in order to search for a certain option, they don't want to browse a supplemental text file. 3.) Every effort spent into another duplication of such information is waste. If someone really wants to revamp '-h -v' I suggest to create a method that browses the property tree and to force any available option to carry an explanation that is attached to the respective object in the mentioned tree. Duplication of such information unavoidable results in some sort of mess - _always_ :-)) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposal: New way to add commandline options
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Spott schrieb: I see three reasons opposing this idea: 1.) I'm not sure but I assume you can't use : inside a command line option on certain platforms (Windows). I really can't imagine any problems that it might cause under windows (haven't tested it though) 2.) Too often people want to do 'command -h [-v] | grep -i keyword' in order to search for a certain option, they don't want to browse a supplemental text file. see next answer 3.) Every effort spent into another duplication of such information is waste. If someone really wants to revamp '-h -v' I suggest to create a method that browses the property tree and to force any available option to carry an explanation that is attached to the respective object in the mentioned tree. Duplication of such information unavoidable results in some sort of mess - _always_ :-)) If the '-h -v' can get the relevant information out of the property tree then that's the best way to go. The information would be aviable on the command line help and in the property tree browser. It would also stay up to date as there's only one source (redundancy is *bad*). CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDpIy4lhWtxOxWNFcRAt+xAKCnxgY2tvxP9EZpNBslAAbhuCn3iwCfcBcJ 8vMGYAqv/e6z4fEJjkn+QlU= =oGav -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
