Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

++options #368

Closed
maandree opened this issue Oct 28, 2012 · 6 comments
Closed

++options #368

maandree opened this issue Oct 28, 2012 · 6 comments

Comments

@maandree
Copy link

It would be nice if completion scripts could complete ++options, instead of just --options.
And naturally also short variants.

Preferable, it should be possible to just any character instead of a hyphen and any
number of them instead of one for short and two for long.

@ridiculousfish
Copy link
Member

Which commands have ++options? That's a new one for me!

@maandree
Copy link
Author

ponysay have it, but I think there are a few others.

This is essentially because it is hard to find sane short options and short
enough long options, by just using --options if you have many similar options.

@maxnordlund
Copy link
Contributor

Another example of this is ghc compiled binaries having +RTS <ghc options go here> -RTS, and the dig DNS tool.

@floam
Copy link
Member

floam commented Sep 6, 2016

+ options are not very uncommon, typically to toggle something the other way - ++option I've never seen!

@krader1961
Copy link
Contributor

I too have never seen ++option. Looking at the ponysay source we can see that it has a custom, idiosyncratic, option parser. I don't think we should bother supporting that. The dig command is also unusual in that its + options are not command flags in the usual sense; they're query options that modify the DNS lookup. Still, it would be nice if that case could be handled more cleanly. Too, as @floam noted, there are commands which use +option prefix to mean the opposite of -option rather than have the user write -nooption.

The question is whether anyone cares enough to implement support for + in addition to -. This issue is four years old which suggests the answer is no.

@krader1961 krader1961 added the RFC label Dec 12, 2016
@krader1961
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, but I'm going to close this request. The use of + to introduce a flag is sufficiently unusual that we can't justify the work to support it. And ++ is even more unusual and thus even harder to justify supporting it.

@krader1961 krader1961 removed the RFC label May 24, 2017
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 17, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants