Regan Heath, el 22 de October a las 10:41 me escribiste:
> >NO, this is completely false, and why I think you are not entirely
> >familiar with env vars in posix. LD_PRELOAD and LD_LIBRARY_PATH affects
> >ALL, EACH and EVERY program for example. D or not D. Every single
> >dynamically linked program.
> 
> True.  And the reason these behave this way is because we *always*
> want them to - the same is NOT true of the proposed vars for D.

No, not at all, you very rarely want to change LD_PRELOAD and
LD_LIBRARY_PATH globaly.

> Which is my point.
> 
> >This is a super common mechanism. I never ever had problems with this.
> >Did you? Did honestly you even know they existed?
> 
> Yes.  But this is beside the point, which I hope I have clarified now?

No.

My conclusion is we don't agree mainly on this:

I think there are cases where you want runtime configuration to
propagate or be set more or less globally. You think no one will ever
want some runtime option to propagate.

The rest of the argument is based on that difference.

Also, I don't have much of a problem with having command-line options to
configure the runtime too, although I think in linux/unix is much less
natural. Runtime configuration will be most of the time some to be done
either by the developer (in which case it would be nicer to have a
programatic way to configure it), or on a system level, by a system
administrator / devops (in which case for me environment variables are
superior for me). Usually runtime options will be completely meaningless
for a regular user. Also, will you document them when you use --help?
Will you omit them?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
De tan fina la condesa, por no cagarse, reza.
        -- Ricardo Vaporeso

Reply via email to