I have a preference for (a) because I'm mildly philosophically opposed to the abbreviation option (among other reasons, because supporting the shortest unique abbreviation gives rise to surprising results when other possible expansions appear in later releases).
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Bernhard Voelker <m...@bernhard-voelker.de> wrote: > 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 > > -- -- This email is intended solely for the use of its addressee, sender, and any readers of a mailing list archive in which it happens to appear. If you have received this email in error, please say or type three times, "I believe in the utility of email disclaimers," and then reply to the author correcting any spellings (and, optionally, any incorrect spellings), accompanying these with humorous jests about the author's parentage. If you are not the addressee, you are nevertheless permitted to both copy and forward this email since without such permissions email systems are unable to transmit email to anybody, intended recipient or not. To those still reading by this point, the author would like to apologise for being unable to maintain a consistent level of humour throughout this disclaimer. Contents may settle during transit. Do not feed the animals.
