>>>>> 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, etc.? Ulrich
pgpRefoLzQiiY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
