On 4/27/22 20:42, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 27/04/2022 19:36, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 27/04/2022 18:21, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >>> Finally, regarding '-e': is there any precedence (or a clashing option) in >>> any other >>> factor(1) implementation? >> >> We generally avoid new short options where possible. >> This would just need the long option to enable this >> given it's kind of esoteric and not often used interactively. > > I see NetBSD has used '-h' for this "human readable" functionality. > I suppose for more compat with that we could have: > > -h, --exponents
Then we have to ensure that our -h works the same as theirs. > We might leave the -h undocumented, > for the reasons stated above. I'm not a fan of such hidden features. E.g. if another implementation searches in our usage() if such an option already exists, then they'd be fooled by the non-information. Either we support a feature and it's cool, or we should leave it, i.e., in this case we could only have a long option, but if we have a short option as well, then we also have to document it. Have a nice day, Berny
