Mark Phippard wrote:
>> 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.
>
I'm just getting back into the swing of things after having a leave
of absence from Hong Kong. I hope to get back into the proper
frame of mind with regards to these issues.
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? 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?
Edmund
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2375739
Received on 2009-07-27 07:33:08 CEST