[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [Issue 3436] New - Short option for --ignore-externals (-i ?)

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:12:16 -0400

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Edmund Wong<edmund_at_belfordhk.com> wrote:

> A 'better' way would be to increase it to a multi-character option,
> i.e. -cl.  But that will break the whole option set type,
> apr_getopt_option_t as confirmed by Peter Samuelson.  This would,
> as I felt before, require recoding apr_getopt_option_t to use
> char *opt, rather than the current 'int optch' in apr_getopt.h.
> Or better yet, copy the struct apr_getopt_option_t and extend it
> with a 'longer opt', i.e.  const char * optstr.  Then whatever
> accesses the old structure will need to be changed to access
> the new one.   The outcome of this?  A better option-set structure
> that can increase the option playground (so to speak).  So
> --ignore-externals can be -ie.  --ignore-something-else can be
> -ise.  Of course, a policy should be set to allow a decent set
> of options to be created instead of assigning short-options to
> every option available.   So in the short run, with the multi-char
> option, some/alot of code will need to be fixed.  Long run?
> A larger option field.  Heck, even if we limit it to just
> two characters, that's 26*26 possible options plus the punctation
> ones, i.e. -?.  Of course, some combinations would make no sense
> and probably can decrease that possible list to a manageable
> size.  Of course, fixing the # of characters to 2 is arbitrary.
> I could've said 3 or 4, but when does a short-option become
> a long option?    It would be silly to put -hlp to represent
> help (when -? or -h would've sufficed); again, as stated,
> some combinations make no sense/or are silly.
>
> I believe there is a potential gain if the short option was
> changed from (int) to (char *) (but limited to 2 characters).
> Priority wise, I know it's not up there.  It's an aesthetic
> issue that shortens operators' typing; that's all (AFAIK).
> But again, I might be short-sighted in terms of feasibility
> and Subversion theory.
>
> Corrections greatly appreciated.

I do not understand why this is needed. Why can't you simply create a
new long option alias like: --iex or even --ie? That is what was done
with changelists.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2371227
Received on 2009-07-14 15:12:41 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.