On 17 October 2016 at 15:51, Chris Angelico
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Nick Coghlan
wrote: On 17 October 2016 at 13:40, Chris Angelico
wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Nick Coghlan
wrote: While it *is* a little unusual to implement it that way, I don't think that's sufficient reason to break with the established output format for the plain "-V".
Seems reasonable. Minor point: I'd be forever having to check whether it's -vV, -Vv, or -VV
If we use the normal verbose flag, then both "-vV" and "-Vv" will work, since options can be provided in any order.
That's a good start, at least.
I don't think it makes sense to also allow "-VV" - we're not requesting the version twice, we're asking for more verbose version information.
It's not as far-fetched as you might think - if "vv" means "more verbose", and "qq" means "more quiet", then "VV" means "more version info".
I'm fine with making "-V" itself a counted option, and hence supporting -VV *instead of* -vV. The only approach I'm not OK with is allowing both -VV *and* the mixed-case form to request more detailed version information. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia