On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 1/5/2013 4:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Also, I suggest taking the opportunity to change the sense of flags such as no_site and dont_write_bytecode. I find it much more difficult to reason that "dont_write_bytecode = 0" means *do* write bytecode, rather than "write_bytecode = 1". I.e. positives are better than double-negatives.
IE, you prefer positive flags, with some on by default, over having all flags indicate a non-default condition. I would too, but I don't hack on the C code base. 'dont_write_bytecode' is especially ugly.
Would it be less ugly if called 'suppress_bytecode'? It sounds less negative, but does the same thing. Suppressing something is an active and positive action (though the democratic decision to not publish is quite different, as Yes Minister proved). ChrisA