-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Spott schrieb:
>
> I see three reasons opposing this idea:
> 1.) I'm not sure but I assume you can't use ":" inside a command line
> option on certain platforms (Windows).
I really can't imagine any problems that it might cause under window
Erik Hofman wrote:
> How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line
> options in favor of the --prop:= method and make sure all
> of them are explained in a document rather than the help message.
I see three reasons opposing this idea:
1.) I'm not sure but I assume you can't
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I don't see the real benefit of this naming change. I rather see the
burden of changing fgrun. And there are options that are not reduced to
a property assignment.
True, those should be kept. But the main reason I started this was because:
1. We have at least two opti
Erik Hofman a écrit :
Hi,
I was thinking, FlightGear is already able to handle way more options
than advertised when running fgfs -h -v
How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line
options in favor of the --prop:= method and make sure all
of them are explained in a do
Hi,
I was thinking, FlightGear is already able to handle way more options
than advertised when running fgfs -h -v
How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line
options in favor of the --prop:= method and make sure all
of them are explained in a document rather than the h
