On 07/17/2016 08:49 PM, James Youngman wrote: > I can see your point, but I think it might seem surprising for > --interactive=no to turn on the interactive behaviour. Can we refine > your proposal so it isn't surprising in this way, somehow?
Ah, that was ambigous, too, I must admit. Maybe one of these? a) --interactive=default-no vs. --interactive=default-yes b) --interactive=newline-means-no vs. --interactive=newline-means-yes c) --interactive=no-per-default vs. --interactive=yes-per-default a) may be the clearest (and most closest to your initial proposal), while c) could be abbreviated by the user to "...=n" which is faster to type. WDYT? Have a nice day, Berny
