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. 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/