[Chicken-hackers] Ambiguity in csc's command line options (#1193)
Hi, I've filed https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1193 , which reports an isue about ambiguity in csc's command line options. Maybe CHICKEN 5 can be a good opportunity to fix that issue, since backward compatibility is not such a big compromise, Some options we have: 1. require a space between the parameter and the argument. So, `-lfoo' would be an invalid option and `-l foo' would mean link against libfoo. -lfa2 would be a valid option, and would NOT mean link against libfa2. 2. support GNU-style command line options, that is, --long and -l. Then we'd have --lfa2 to ask chicken to perform an additional lightweight flow-analysis pass and -lfa2 to link against libfa2. Any other ideas? Comments? Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Ambiguity in csc's command line options (#1193)
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:33:20PM +, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: Hi, I've filed https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1193 , which reports an isue about ambiguity in csc's command line options. Maybe CHICKEN 5 can be a good opportunity to fix that issue, since backward compatibility is not such a big compromise, Some options we have: 1. require a space between the parameter and the argument. So, `-lfoo' would be an invalid option and `-l foo' would mean link against libfoo. -lfa2 would be a valid option, and would NOT mean link against libfa2. 2. support GNU-style command line options, that is, --long and -l. Then we'd have --lfa2 to ask chicken to perform an additional lightweight flow-analysis pass and -lfa2 to link against libfa2. Any other ideas? Comments? I'd be in favor of switching to a more standard GNU getopt-like approach where there's a clear distinction between single letter options without arguments (which can be grouped together like -abc which means -a -b -c), single letter options with arguments (which allow an optional space so you'd have -lfoo and -l foo which mean the same) and multi-letter long options, in the GNU style like --foo which is its own option. If it accepts an argument, it must be separated with a space like --lfa2 or --library curses as an alternative to -lcurses. We could paint a bikeshed about whether --library=curses should be acceptable or not. Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Ambiguity in csc's command line options (#1193)
Mario Domenech Goulart scripsit: 2. support GNU-style command line options, that is, --long and -l. Then we'd have --lfa2 to ask chicken to perform an additional lightweight flow-analysis pass and -lfa2 to link against libfa2. I consider X-style -foo options to be obsolete, and much prefer the GNU-style --foo options. I'm always annoyed when I type --foo to Chicken and it gets mishandled. As a first step to switching, I'd recommend allowing --foo=bar options everywhere, and eventually deprecating and removing the -foo options. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Normally I can handle panic attacks on my own; but panic is, at the moment, a way of life. --Joseph Zitt ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
