[spambayes-dev] proposal for more uniform option setting from
kennypitt at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 12 15:09:54 EST 2003
Skip Montanaro wrote:
> Kenny> Also, some command line flags can set several related
> Kenny> values to the correct combination (e.g. set both the
> Kenny> filename and type with one flag), and the new syntax would
> Kenny> require knowing the correct combination and providing all
> Kenny> correct values.
> I think that's more confusing than it ought to be. Having -d and -D
> simultaneously set two options seems
Bad example <wink>. Should have known from past experience that those
were the ones you're gunning for.
> >> This could be extended further. Should the user give an
> >> -o flag such as "-o Storage" or "-o Storage:spam_cache", help
> >> that section or variable could be emitted:
> Kenny> What about options that have no effect on the application
> Kenny> run?
> I hadn't considered that.
> Kenny> Would it be possible to detect them and show help in that
> Kenny> also?
> I suppose so, but the application would then have to register all the
> options it's interested in. How would the application author know
> what all the storage options were without diving into storage.py and
Good point. There are quite a few layers to most operations, and
digging up an exhaustive list of what is actually used for a particular
case would be extremely difficult.
> Kenny> How would we present a list of useful options to the end
> Kenny> without overwhelming them with rarely changed settings and
> Kenny> internal details?
> Experiment, I suppose.
> It appears the majority of users will use the Outlook plugin for
> which this doesn't apply. I suspect I'm appealing more to the
> propeller heads among us.
If that is the intended audience then all of my comments above are
pretty much moot. As I said initially, I'm all for it from the
standpoint of testing, and the propeller heads don't need no stinkin'
help, right? <wink>
So, my final vote: +1
More information about the spambayes-dev