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) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
