From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Getopt improvements
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:04:54 +0300
Message-ID: <20030228100454.B878@namesys.com>
References: <3E5D26A2.7010804@suse.com> <20030227092551.C28643@namesys.com> <3E5E312C.50406@suse.com> <3E5E730C.7030804@namesys.com> <3E5E84B2.90708@suse.com> <3E5E92BA.4090307@namesys.com> <3E5EAA3A.8030203@suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-12965-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E5EAA3A.8030203@suse.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Cc: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, Reiserfs List <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>

Hello!

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 07:15:54PM -0500, Jeff Mahoney wrote:

> 	Well, the more possible values a given multivalue option has, the more 
> values that need to be explicitly negated for a mutually exclusive 
> option. The descriptor lines get quite long with more than 2 options 
> when you need to specify every value you need to clear.

That's true. Not sure we can do something about that.

> 	I also got to thinking that perhaps the idea of being able to specify 
> multiple values for multivalue options isn't that great. If more than 
> one value is possible, the option should probably be a first level 
> option (ie: -ooption) rather than a second level option (ie: 
> -oname=value). With that in mind, I'd prefer to see my original 
> implementation used.

Well, we have two kinds of tails now, large and small.
So do you propose we should have:
notail
smalltail
largetail options?
please keep in mind that smalltail and largetail are mutually exclusive.

Bye,
    Oleg