Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/5] pacman-conf: accept short options
On 02/08/18 at 10:49pm, i...@escondida.tk wrote: > From: Ivy Foster> > Also change '-?' no longer to be an error, because if we're going to > check for it anyway, why make it an error? Because '?' indicates an error.
Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/5] pacman-conf: accept short options
On 02/08/2018 11:49 PM, i...@escondida.tk wrote: > From: Ivy Foster> > Also change '-?' no longer to be an error, because if we're going to > check for it anyway, why make it an error? Hmm, why are we checking for it at all? I see no reason to treat it differently from any