Edmund Wong wrote:
> I understand it's simple to add a new long option but wouldn't
> that simply be a quick hack without the necessary considerations
> that (from what Julian pointed out) adding any new option (short or
> long) would require (for lack of a better word) a 'way' to
> tell anyone thinking of adding new options of how to go about
> this. I got from Julian's post that while simple to implement,
> how do we go about in determining the option name?
I think you're asking whether there is (or should be) a procedure or
guidelines for choosing a short name. There is none.
My point is just that there is far more "name space" available in two-
or three-letter "shortish" long option names than in single-letter
option names, so we are less concerned about "using them up".
> Or am I just being stupid about this and the simple solution is
> to take the simplest contraction of the long option and make
> it an alias of the long option. If, in the near future,
> a similar option is proposed, we extend that with another
> character?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "we extend that". Yes, we can just
choose something like "--ie" now. If, in the near or far future, we add
a new option such as "--ignore-existing" and want a shortish alias for
it, then we can't choose "--ie" but we will have plenty of "room" to
choose another reasonable abbreviation for the new option, such as
"--ix" or "--iexist".
So, for now, I would suggest "--ie".
- Julian
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2376049
Received on 2009-07-27 18:38:46 CEST