Re: [Boost-build] How many different kinds of command-line options

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-13 08:45:40

On Monday 13 February 2006 16:32, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > On Friday 10 February 2006 21:11, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> ...do we have in Boost.Build?
> >>
> >> Seems to me we have
> >>
> >>   bjam -jamoption -sVARIABLE=setting --bboption --bboption=value
> >> feature=value ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>                                                 Not sure we're using
> >>                                                 this one
> >>
> >> Somehow this just seems too confusing.  Am I missing something?
> >
> > I think that would be confusing to have it all, but:
> >
> >   1. The -sVARIABLE=setting is not used in V2, at least I never used
> >   it.
>
> I know, but v1 isn't gone yet.  Even after it is, users will have it
> in their brains from v1, and it's on various mirrors around the web.
> Probably the Wiki also.

But we can't do much about this. I think we've all agreed long time ago that 
-s is not the best interface.

> >   2. --bboption=value is used only in help system.
>
> And that somehow makes it less of a factor? The help system is one of
> the most exposed parts of BB.

Well, probably, I did not use it recently though. 

<aside>
Maybe we need to increase the role of --help option by consistently trying to 
redirect users to it when applicable.
</aside>

> I've certainly used this syntax in BBv1 for other things, e.g.
>
>      "--debugger=devenv /debugexe"
>
> that I would like to see replicated in v2.

Ok, that seems reasonable.

>
> > So, the commonly used options are
> >
> >    -jamoption --bboption feature=value
>
> You don't think the help system will be commonly used?
>
> > and -jamoption are used mostly for -d* options. Maybe, we can add
> > --options for all -joption, i.e, if we have
> >
> >    -n
> >
> > we can add
> >
> >    --dry-run
> >
> > with the same effect. Do you think that will improve things?
>
> Maybe.  Do you think new users will really not write
>
>         --feature=value
>
> by mistake?  I think *I've* done that, as a matter of fact.  It's
> especially bad because we don't, IIUC, detect unused --options.

Detecting unused options will be right approach. As for "--feature=value" 
syntax, I'm not sure regular options are features are exactly the same and 
should not use different syntax.

- Volodya