On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:17:53PM +0100, sin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 09:07:10PM +0200, Silvan Jegen wrote: > > I can see the need for a '-d' flag for compatibility reasons but my > > preference would be to just ignore the flag if it is specified. What are > > peoples opinion on the '-d' flag? > > One thing that is different is the breaking conditions for when to consider > the invocation as invalid usage (in the -d case we check for >= 2 in > any other case we check for != 2). So in that case we cannot consider -d > as a no-op as far as I uderstand it.
I have a patch in the pipeline that will adjust the usage checks. I will submit it if we decide to change the behavior.
