[email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> skribis: > >> We might want to change the long option name (while continuing to accept >> --load-path for backward compatibility), but I can't think of a good >> name. Any suggestions? > > As discussed on IRC, I agree that the long name can be misleading. > > Yet, I’d rather keep it, especially since the doc is non-ambiguous and > ‘-L’ looks familiar. > > Done? :-)
Okay, I'm closing this bug.
Mark
