Re: --no-newline vs. --strict

2015-02-25 Thread Julian Foad
Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: >> The single usage of the --strict option is arguably complete nonsense: >> the default docstring, which isn't displayed *anywhere*, is 'use strict >> semantics' and ... means nothing at all. In actual usage, --strict is >> hardly mnemonic for not

Re: --no-newline vs. --strict

2015-02-25 Thread Branko Čibej
On 25.02.2015 14:22, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> The single usage of the --strict option is arguably complete nonsense: >> the default docstring, which isn't displayed *anywhere*, is 'use strict >> semantics' and ... means nothing at all. In actual usage, --strict is >> hardly

Re: --no-newline vs. --strict

2015-02-25 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > The single usage of the --strict option is arguably complete nonsense: > the default docstring, which isn't displayed *anywhere*, is 'use strict > semantics' and ... means nothing at all. In actual usage, --strict is > hardly mnemonic for not printing trailing newlines. --

--no-newline vs. --strict

2015-02-25 Thread Branko Čibej
ith > 'propget'? It seems odd for different sub-commands to use different > names for what is essentially the same option. > > 'svn youngest' is not a precedent for using --no-newline in 'svn' as it > was never released. 'svnversion' does us