Re: Option synonims

[Paolo Redælli]

Il 15/03/22 20:07, Raphael Mack ha scritto:

> Am Dienstag, dem 15.03.2022 um 14:14 +0100 schrieb Paolo Redælli:
> > Do we know that we may use "--" instead of "-" and "-" instead of "_"
> > in 
> > options?
> >
> > I.e.: -no_warning --no_warning -no-warning and --no-warning are all 
> > synonims for the same option.
> >
> > Shall I make it a little more known, perhaps changing the help
> > message?
> >       
> I even do not like to have so many different version of the same thing
> :-) and for command line options my personal opinion is that eiffelish
> names are not the best practice, we should stick to what is normal on
> the command line. -> I would be fine to remove the _ and -xxxx options
> from the command line help. One release later we could then issue a
> warning that the old names are obsolete and again 1-2 releases later I
> would be fine to get rid of these multiple options...
>

The original version was the dash and underscores version (i.e. "-no_warning").

Some years ago I raised the issue pointing out that those option's names aren't GNU-ish or even POSIXish at all, so code managing it has been changed to accept both single and double dash and both dash and underscores.

BTW, it is implemented in COMMAND_LINE_TOOLS.flag_match (in liberty-eiffel/src/smarteiffel/utils/command_line_tools.e).

I think that it is wise to leave at least for now this separate logic. Shall we progressively switch command line handling to cli cluster (in src/lib/cli: COMMAND_LINE_ARGUMENT )?