Jason McIntyre wrote: > therefore the pattern is currently to say it explicitly. we could > do both, but that adds verbosity. it's a trade off, no? i wouldn;t > be against documenting both bits of information, but i'm not sure > it's really worth it. > > i think it'd be wrong to lose the info about options implying other > options though. and i note where you now effectively do both (-e and -t) > you are at least as verbose as before, if not more. and "as according > to" is much less clear than "implies".
Thanks, I attempted to keep a mix of old and new.
