This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: non coherent options, switches and descriptions

>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Booth <> writes:

 Neil> Zack Weinberg wrote:-
 >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:12:46PM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote: > >
 >> > > $ gcc -V > > gcc: argument to `-V' is missing > > There is no
 >> real way around this one.  Most of the binutils use -v to > mean
 >> "enable verbose" and -V to mean "display version".  The fact that
 >> > gcc has a different interpretation of these two options is just
 >> one of > those things.
 >> There was general agreement, some time ago, that -V's current
 >> effect was basically useless; perhaps it could be replaced by the
 >> binutils effect.

 Neil> Sounds like a plan to me 8-)

Um... but I remember makefiles that use it.

Yes, it's a bit unfortunate that not all utilities have the same
command line syntax.  But it's a bit late to make incompatible

Incompatible changes that are necessary to add useful new functions
are one thing; incompatible changes to satisfy some abstract sense of
CLI esthetics are much harder to justify.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]