On 17 October 2016 at 15:51, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> That's a good start, at least.
>> 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.
> It's not as far-fetched as you might think - if "vv" means "more
> verbose", and "qq" means "more quiet", then "VV" means "more version
> info".

I'm fine with making "-V" itself a counted option, and hence
supporting -VV *instead of* -vV.

The only approach I'm not OK with is allowing both -VV *and* the
mixed-case form to request more detailed version information.


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

Reply via email to