On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually >>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which >>>> creates another set of confusion. > >>> What's the problem? The greater the number, the more warnings you get. >>> Simple. >> >> Not necessarily. > > Your argument makes no sense.
Do you think that assertion makes sens when no evidence is provided to support it? > You said that there was a problem because > people will expect numbered -W options to be ordinal. What is nonsensical there? > But they *are* ordinal. Now? What is the order? > So people's expectations will be correct. You haven't said anything about > where the problem is yet, you've just asserted that there will be one without > demonstration or evidence, so again I ask: What's the problem? You said the greater the number the more warnings you get, but you did not show that would happen, so you have not shown that would necessarily happen. What is nonsensical there? > > It works just fine for -O, Exactly what happens with -O? -On does not necessarily generate faster or better code when n is higher. In fact, -Os is a perfect example of a short name that is NOT a number. > users understand and are happy with that, why > shouldn't it work just as well for -W? > > cheers, > DaveK >
