This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: non coherent options, switches and descriptions
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Booth <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.