On 11/04/2009 01:24 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
BTW, it wouldn't be ambiguous to the program, nor would it
be different than the existing meaning, but as you say,
users could mistakenly do -P0 when they meant -0P.
So I'll make the arg mandatory, but what to choose?
"n" is all I can come up with in my half awake state.
I'll sleep on it.
I propose that --parallel is the same as -P<num-procs>.
I would go a step further and deprecate --num-procs=NNN while making
--parallel[=NNN] the new "long" version of -P. Long options (unlike
short options) are safer when it comes to optional arguments, so
--parallel's argument could indeed be optional (while -P would keep the
mandatory argument). The name change would be needed however to have an
optional argument.
Paolo
