>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote:

>> It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an
>> argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option,
>> and simply not specifying it to disable?

> What is wrong is that a number of developers have historically not
> specified the option and broke stuff. Plus, it's infinitely silly to
> require people to explicitly specify the option to enable required
> behavior.

My remark was about syntax, not about semantics. "-d y" and "-d n"
instead of "-d" and "(nothing)" is a crappy user interface.

Maybe unify things into "--include-profiles=<stable,dev,exp>" (with a
comma separated list of "stable", "dev", and "exp") or
"--include-profile-level=<n>" with n=0 for stable, n=1 for stable+dev,


Attachment: pgpRefoLzQiiY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to