From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id EDcCG8CMqV7KLgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:18:40 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id APaIIcmMqV5OYAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:18:49 +0000 Received: from arlo.cworth.org (arlo.cworth.org [50.126.95.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A4AA9424F9 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132EB6DE10B1; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftwqNmCmQTl3; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arlo.cworth.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3ACA6DE104A; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7257C6DE104A for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7SQuP_GnTSJC for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lahtoruutu.iki.fi (lahtoruutu.iki.fi [212.16.98.55]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5AB26DE102B for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2380:1:9:5054:ff:feb7:a4bc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: too) by lahtoruutu.iki.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37BBB1B00328; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:18:26 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iki.fi; s=lahtoruutu; t=1588169906; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rT6atthCE+abcYxHRpLqTuyDbw8g69iRvRLzGDMKPD0=; b=IN/WGS+EBZuUyuzIqwTshPduUwMbuDiR3AWks3UXIy12JBm7l15I5ZFQSwWIsSdGoOFmd9 ryAxaw8kRP6xRfKi4BoJRJC7lUzSltBC/EUANjVWStn3NWZJc5tFFt1rzRenwE3XATjKjF wMTYhkxPY0N2wj3vFddKkNaomZFwTKK/KNd7eCQaYIxr4PcRB4gO2GK87znJ08IWfj6ZKq z6iptj1YoTGQXo7rag8gkBpSg5lnEVFmBTxwRiNDjU7obf5n8CgHQYJDihxKzv+GzDghZt qKWsXP7QjSPL4SDCL9l+WcUve6SIOxfOY7MaM/nC2AikOkopGttg/m/hq05MiQ== From: Tomi Ollila To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Ciprian Dorin Craciun Subject: Re: Inconsistencies in handling command flags: `--flag=value` different than `--flag value` In-Reply-To: <87blnbvxx4.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87imhk95oc.fsf@tethera.net> <87k120x0wh.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87blnbvxx4.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.28.3+84~g41389bb (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.2.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: HhBM'cA~ MIME-Version: 1.0 ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iki.fi; s=lahtoruutu; t=1588169906; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rT6atthCE+abcYxHRpLqTuyDbw8g69iRvRLzGDMKPD0=; b=PmXCA0BBH0YQEqOo0IxBzB78tdGIzxjDmeZbrhl3hJrQFrJj8b0wajmDxCz5Zx1NuYfqvP 48BO5yLQvg8ecW0qiK8dsr2lrDmthXDpHH/dj6EBBTX65vI1lAGdQ8IJi2cKcAqDhCgKHW zkn2e/+zPBwo+MkhCWHGDCzEb3rDJ3HiKnMTv+mo1esuA3ZDci6fereAk83NovrQQI6jyj NRyThoME2gDWS8s6SY/4P23krjiHPQ/kyOGD7HROl873LbCjkoc3MAU5cTI2dfqqTZsHlJ wO/UGfJBKMtyxg2e7OXvhKwtDbIJC4cZb9IhQT/N+ipvwswCKfqhlVb9RNCK3w== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=lahtoruutu; d=iki.fi; t=1588169906; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=TNJbYJT0bN7BLa5F34STO/0KXc3Jvpw0cG/75NBeqzcMYFjakywBjQY0fFzsgHzfq1h2Ob mPBqvEbptsmoRUV2YQNPe4jcb726/yN7IU2HdlP7ihOvP6hRjwb1f7NMxgwmJZA1IfpLRI G5CwFi040RjWgAKb8Budpku9zJR38b5JJyqD2fZ3CtL0e/+6UAJNvD9ku5puuN+uMfROZf nlZAi0wysKGMeJK7SRu6fd4Bm59en+u7TJhNCYLzfJXK2NFllIyKFuXh5OIA8Kw/a1kfx9 lWf/ISP41By+nFu0x2e+ZWi60g8WP0KwfhUh8GWuUle8uheNAxU7NOFfl5+u/Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=too smtp.mailfrom=tomi.ollila@iki.fi X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org Sender: "notmuch" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 1.99 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=iki.fi header.s=lahtoruutu header.b=IN/WGS+E; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 50.126.95.6 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [1.99 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.46356304524782]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 27017(-0.18), country: US(-0.00), ip: 50.126.95.6(-0.46)]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[50.126.95.6:server fail]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[iki.fi:s=lahtoruutu]; ARC_REJECT(2.00)[signature check failed: fail, {[1] = sig:iki.fi:reject}]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: notmuchmail.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[iki.fi:-]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[fifthhorseman.net,gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:27017, ipnet:50.126.64.0/18, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[tomi.ollila@iki.fi,notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[notmuchmail.org:email]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; SPF_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[-0.45875913757993]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[notmuch@notmuchmail.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[50.126.95.6:from]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[iki.fi]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[8]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: SZfU4SJpuZDP On Tue, Apr 28 2020, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > One final way we could normalize everything and make it less > idiosyncratic, with shorter, simpler man pages: deprecate and then drop > the --booloption/--no-booloption mechanisms, requiring --booloption=true > or --booloption=false instead. Once they're dropped, allow whitespace > between "--booloption true" and "--booloption false" just like every > other type of option. I must say, being it perhaps slightly inconvenient to the user, that this is IMO the best option, and just allowing 'true' and 'false' (case-sensitively). Least chance to work how used did not expected... > in case it's not clear: I believe that "we have succinct and yet > complete man pages" is a convenient shorthand for "have we made this > command-line program behave in an understandable/usable way?" Sounds/looks like reasonable expectation... > > --dkg Tomi