On 19/11/13 18:20, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/19/13, 1:12 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 18/11/13 23:15, David Ahern wrote:
>>> Why not cleanup the options for the commands and move all of the no- to
>>> just ? Anyone using no- would still just work by the existing code.
>>
>> Interesti
On 11/19/13, 1:12 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 18/11/13 23:15, David Ahern wrote:
Why not cleanup the options for the commands and move all of the no- to
just ? Anyone using no- would still just work by the existing code.
Interesting idea but the short and long options are a combina
On 18/11/13 23:15, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/18/13, 2:55 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> Long options can be negated by prefixing them
>> with 'no-'. However options that already start
>> with 'no-', such as '--no-inherit' result in ugly
>> double 'no's. Avoid that by accepting that the
>> removal o
On 11/18/13, 2:55 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
Long options can be negated by prefixing them
with 'no-'. However options that already start
with 'no-', such as '--no-inherit' result in ugly
double 'no's. Avoid that by accepting that the
removal of 'no-' also negates the long option.
Why not clea
Long options can be negated by prefixing them
with 'no-'. However options that already start
with 'no-', such as '--no-inherit' result in ugly
double 'no's. Avoid that by accepting that the
removal of 'no-' also negates the long option.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra
5 matches
Mail list logo
