Am Sat, 02 Aug 2014 12:34:54 -0700 schrieb Walter Bright <[email protected]>:
> On 8/1/2014 3:58 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > But even if I > > could think of a better name, I think that we're stuck with -debug > > at this point. > > One thing that people hate even more than breaking existing code is > breaking their makefile (or equivalent). > > Makefiles typically are cut&pasted from some other project, with the > switches copied over without review. Worse, the switches sometimes > come in from macros, and scripts are written to drive the makefiles, > and it becomes a wholly unmaintainable tangle. > > Programmers have gotten a lot better about writing clear, > maintainable code, but I can't say the same for the build process. > Those are worse than ever. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw Wait - are you arguing that we can't change the name of a compiler flag because users would have to do a 'search&replace' in their Makefiles, but breaking existing code (assert/assume) which will be very hard to track down for users is OK, cause 'that code was broken anyway'? We could also argue that Makefiles using '-debug' are broken anyway, cause the name debug doesn't match the behavior of the compiler and users will likely expect a different behavior.
