On 09/11/2007, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > > > RejectNegative is not intuitive? I really would like to hear your > > suggestion. Honestly, not sarcasm here. > > I agree with the original poster Juan Luis Liarte, RejectNegative, as a > marker for string argument, is extremely counterintuitive: strings are > not negative (nor positive)! So I welcome another keyword form them. > Perhaps just StringArgument could be ok? > > Is there some case where RejectNegative does what it suggest, ie accept > (only) numerical (integer) arguments and reject them if they are less > than 0?
Huh? RejectNegative rejects the negative form of a parameter. That is, -fno-myparameter won't be accepted. Having a negative form is the default for -f* and -W* parameters. I am not sure if that is documented but it should be documented and referenced at the beginning of every *.opt file. > > Also, you would need to be versed in awk, since the scripts that parse > > the *.opt files and generate C code for options are written in awk. Or > > alternatively, you would need to replace them with something else. But > > that won't be a little patch anymore. > Even if it is not a tiny patch, I would welcome it (but I am not in > position of formally approving it). I cannot be against a patch that hasn't even been described but keep in mind that tiny patches are: safer, easier to review and faster to approve. Documenting the current syntax would be an improvement. If you need help preparing a patch, just ask questions in this mailing list. Cheers, Manuel.
