On 17 Mar 2004 at 13:00, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > * David Luff -- Wednesday 17 March 2004 12:22: > > On an (almost) totally unrelated note, I think it would be a good idea to > > test unknown options against aircraft names, so that, for instance, > > bin/fgfs --T38 would work to bring up the T38. Would patches to add this > > be accepted? > > Urks. That would totally break Unix semantics. Options are options. > Make that $ fgfs T38 > > I've always thought that it would be nice if fgfs would accept one > optional argument that would start it in a "situation". For example, > one could make a file ~/.fgfs/situation/rescue that contains definitions > to start with a bo105 (parked on a hospital helipad; doors open; > engines off) or ~/.fgfs/situation/carrier etc. This would then be > started as $ fgfs carrier. > OTOH, one could easily do this with a wrapper ... OK, I convinced > myself and I'll implement this in my fgfs starter script *now* ... :-) >
Maybe unix semantics are totally broken ;-) OK, I see your point. Please disregard the original brain-dump. I stand by my assertion that it's preferable for the short-form aircraft name to be the user-visible one when possible though. Cheers - Dave _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
