On Sunday 28 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:41:20PM CET: > > > Besides, in the particular case of automake, how often do automake > > > or aclocal get invoked directly? To my experience, they are almost > > > always invoked by autoreconf, ./bootstrap, or some custom autogen.sh > > > script. > > (aside: autoreconf works just in the same way as automake in this > respect.) > > > > > > Let's address this on bug-standards before changing any programs. > > > > > Now a decision has been reached on bug-standards *not* to tighten the > > specification about the behaviour of --help and --version: > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2010-11/msg00010.html> > > Nor to forbid the current behavior of automake. > True, but as I said before I never considered the automake behaviour to be wrong or not GCS-compliant, just (IMO uselessly) overzealous. > > Considering that, do you agree to simplify the automake/aclocal option > > parsing by not trying to process --help/--version options encountered > > after invalid options? > > I'm painfully aware that this is a near-bikeshed discussion, but I > simply fail to see the advantage of taking away existing functionality > helpful for the user, even if only a few users. > The point is that IMO such functionality is in fact not helpful for any user. But since this claim of mine lacks explicit evidence and is not backed up by quantitative data ATM, I'll have to accept your decision.
> Code simplification is > nice, but this change wouldn't suddenly make automake fast, all that > much more readable, or anything similar. Barring that there is a > technical advantage for our users[1], > I don't think there is, unfortunately. > I remain unconvinced. > > Sorry, > Ralf > Regards, Stefano
