W dniu sob, 03.03.2018 o godzinie 13∶08 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
> > > > > > 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.?

I don't really want to go into this. As far as I'm concerned, I can
leave defunct '-d' and just check dev profiles unconditionally.

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Reply via email to