I like --fail-above. --fail-at may read like it should be exactly 1. On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:33 PM Marc-André Lafortune < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 3 June 2021 at 13:54:58 UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: > >> > > About 4, what if we call it --fail-if-any? Or alternatively, >> --at-most=0 (and you can set it to any positive integer)? >> > `at-most` is short and sweet 👍 >> >> I think it's important for this flag name to communicate that it will >> cause a failure. at-most sounds like it would simply limit graph depth, >> rather than return a non-zero status code if the graph is over a certain >> depth. >> >> Maybe --failure-depth=2 or --fail-at=3? >> > > Agreed, `--fail-at=1` or `--fail-above=0` seem clearer > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "elixir-lang-core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/01896960-5f36-4a4d-859f-4f14dd4dc452n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/01896960-5f36-4a4d-859f-4f14dd4dc452n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4K%3DFzgrxfSy5L8y0EtOvJBKqJx1OUvyKhYfX9SFH3Eq8g%40mail.gmail.com.
