On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 21:51:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:42:06PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 14:10:14 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
[...]
But we probably would be better off if none of the switches
had names
like -release or -debug so that folks actually had to figure
out what
they did before using them rather than simply assuming that
one is for
release builds and the other is for debug builds.
[...]
Great. So let's rename all of dmd's command-line options to -a,
-b, -c,
-d, -e, -f, ... (in arbitrary order). As long as we document it
all, it
will work just perfectly fine, right? After all, it *does*
force users
to *really* know what each option does. :-D
LOL. That would be stupid. No, what would make sense would be
something like --remove-assertions.
But regardless, I'm not advocating that we change the switches. I
don't think that it's a big enough problem to merit that. But I
do think that we could have picked better names.
The one that always stumps me though is -debug. It's a bad name,
because it makes people think debug/release, when all it does is
enable debug blocks, and it can actually be used in release
builds, but given that they're debug blocks, -debug makes sense.
And I can't think of a better name for it. But even if I could
think of a better name, I think that we're stuck with -debug at
this point.
- Jonathan M Davis
