On 17 October 2016 at 13:40, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While it *is* a little unusual to implement it that way, I don't think
>> that's sufficient reason to break with the established output format
>> for the plain "-V".
> Seems reasonable. Minor point: I'd be forever having to check whether
> it's -vV, -Vv, or -VV

If we use the normal verbose flag, then both "-vV" and "-Vv" will
work, since options can be provided in any order.

I don't think it makes sense to also allow "-VV" - we're not
requesting the version twice, we're asking for more verbose version
information. Since "-v" is already a counted option, we're also free
to expand it to give even more info the more verbose we ask it to be
(although initially I think pursuing just Inada-san's main suggestion
of matching the REPL header makes sense)


Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to