[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#40549: More usability issues:
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
bug#40549: More usability issues: |
Date: |
Tue, 12 May 2020 12:38:50 +0200 |
Hi Ludo,
Sorry, I am not compliant and reorder your quotes to ease the
discussion -- from my point of view. :-)
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 10:51, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
> However (srfi srfi-37) does it as we see it now. Fixing it would mean
> implementing a different option parser.
Yes or add a lot of complexity.
Both appears to me wrong. Such corner cases do not deserve one or the other.
> I think there are option parsers that “correctly” deal with the
> ambiguity that arises for instance with “-I -p foo” (is ‘-p’ the
> argument to ‘-I’ or something else?). Perhaps libc’s argp does it
> right.
I have never deeply dove into srfi-37 and 'option' but from my
understanding, it is not possible. Somehow, the issue comes from
srfi-37 and srfi-37 should consider that if an argument starts with
dash, then it is not an argument and turn it into an option.
> Nothing new here, and everything is properly documented.
I am not sure. The manual says, for example:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
‘--list-installed[=REGEXP]’
‘-I [REGEXP]’
List the currently installed packages in the specified profile,
with the most recently installed packages shown last. When REGEXP
is specified, list only installed packages whose name matches
REGEXP.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
which is somehow inaccurate. The REGEXP is not optional for the short
option '-I'. And that's true for all the short options with optional
argument, if I understand correctly. For example, "guix package -d -p
/path/to/profile" fails.
Moreover, the distinction between 'action' and 'query' is already
stated so why not underline that composing actions make sense
(transaction) but composing query not?
> > However, main of us are used to read from left to right so it seems
> > more natural to write:
> >
> > guix package --action1 --action2 # (a)
> > than
> > guix package --action2 --action1 # (b)
> >
> > in other words, the fix should be to simply 'reverse opts' and the CLI
> > will read (a) instead of the current (b). My only concern is about
> > backward compatibility.
>
> We’ll need to check exactly what will behave differently. If the tests
> don’t catch anything, I think we’re fine. Most likely, we’re talking
> about corner cases like ‘-S x -d y’, which probably very few people
> tried.
Ok, on this light, let first point the corner cases.
All the best,
simon
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, (continued)
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, Tom Zander, 2020/05/12
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, zimoun, 2020/05/12
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, Tom Zander, 2020/05/12
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, zimoun, 2020/05/12
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, Tom Zander, 2020/05/13
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2020/05/13
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, zimoun, 2020/05/13
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2020/05/13
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, zimoun, 2020/05/14
- bug#40549: More usability issues:, zimoun, 2020/05/12
bug#40549: More usability issues:,
zimoun <=
bug#40549: More usability issues:, zimoun, 2020/05/12
bug#40549: More usability issues:, Efraim Flashner, 2020/05/14