> > > Thomas, I have changed -m <opts> style to -smart, -fast... style. I
> > > hope this was what you meant. Also, please note that I still stick
> > > with smart/fast/immediate since I have been waiting for Vadim's
> > > opinion...
> > Ugh, that's not a compliant option style. What was wrong with -m
> > <opt>? How about --smart, etc.? But 'single dash, multiple letters' is
> > evil.
> Oh, I'm confused now. Thomas, could you let me know what you think?
> Lamar is trying to use pg_ctl for his RPM project, and we need
> decision on that.
Sorry, I didn't catch your question earlier. I agree with Peter that
we should choose single character switches with single dashes (e.g. -s
for "smart", -f for "fast", etc.) or --smart, --fast etc (or both
styles).
Hopefully we'll get some feedback from Vadim soon on the naming; istm
that the "smart", "fast", "immediate" is just too obscure or too
related to the developer's view of the implementation to be the right
choice for the user interface.
The switches and options should describe what they *do*, not what the
developer thought of them ;)
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
