|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2004-02-01 03:40:46
|
On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 14:58, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Of course, for backwards compatibility, we could let the old invocations > still work. The way --weird-hacks works internally would have to be > changed slightly, eg. into a bit-mask, because it currently only allows > one weird hack at a time. > > Comments? That doesn't really help. Just because you put them in weird-hacks, it doesn't mean you don't have to document them (since it's probably a bug that weird-hacks isn't properly documented in the usage message). I've never particularly liked weird-hacks, and I don't think we should extend it. Perhaps we should just add a third set of options: --help-unusual, or something. J |