Negating options

[Jan Hudec]

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:26:50 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> I would like to see us be very regular about this, rather than being
> proper English.
> So while "dont-set-scripts-executable" is better English,
> "--no-set-scripts-executable" is more regular, and easier to figure out.
> 
> So I would propose that we use either "--no-*" everywhere, or maybe a
> mix of "--no-*" and "--non-*". --no- is for actions/nouns, --non- is for
> adjectives. --non-empty, --no-default. but while --no-empty is a little
> unclear, it is more regular.

If we always use --no-, then all the logic can be generic and commands won't
actually need to declare they take any such option.

> As far as using optparse, if we can get it to do what we want "parse
> this set of options, then parse this other set of options once the first
> have been handled, and we have taken the first non-option as a command
> name" I would be happy to use it. My concern is that it doesn't actually
> support our use case very well.
> 
> We also want to allow commands to introduce options, along with the help
> text. And if we can shoe-horn it into our current syntax, so that we
> don't have another 10k+ line change it would be nice.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060205/7a5abc0c/attachment.pgp