On 11/11/2011 12:25 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/11/2011 10:36 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that >> -k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new >> long option? >> >> Makes sense to me > > That sort of thing makes sense to me too. > I assume --block-size should silently override -k > if both options are specified (in either order)? > Does -k need a long-named option?
GNU Coding Standards request that all short options have a corresponding long option; by breaking the tie between -k and --block-size, we are breaking that convention unless we also add a new long option for the new meaning of -k. -- Eric Blake [email protected] +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
