[Po4a-dev]Changing the option names? Really?

[Martin Quinson]

Hello,

I am about changing the option names of all scripts, but I would like to
check first what do you guys think. 

Before the questions, the proposal. I plan to use those options in
po4a-gettextize, po4a-updatepo, po4a-translate, and maybe in po4a-normalize:

 -m,--master : original document
 -M,--master-charset
 -t,--trans : translated document [I'm not happy with this one. Looking for
                                   a better name]
 -T,--trans-charset
 -p,--po : po file
 [po charset don't exists since the charset information should be clear]
 
 -a,--addendum:
 -A,--addendum-charset

 -f,--format : module po4a (formerlly -t)
 -F,--help-format : Lists the available formats

 -o,--option : I guess we will encounter cases where we *must* pass options
               to modules. I don't like this [too error prone], but i'll
               have to.

 -d,--debug
 -v,--verbose
 -V,--version

 [po4a-translate specific]
 -k,--keep: 


And now, the question: Are you all happy with those names ? Is this a
problem that the same option is used once for an input file, and in another
program for an output file (like po is for -gettextize and -translate)?

The user will hate me if he calls the wrong binary and if the file get lost
because of this. I mean, if I unify the option names between programs, I've
no way to check and say "hey, I'm the program which erase the po file and
build a new one, not the one doing the contrary", like it is for now since
the command line passed to -gettextize will be rejected by other programs.

Sharing the exact same syntax between program argument (even when [or while]
having a different semantic for them) is an advantage or a problem?

Thanks, Mt.

-- 
Each language has its purpose, however humble.  Each language expresses the
Yin and Yang of software.  Each language has its place within the Tao.
But do not program in COBOL if you can avoid it.
          -- The Tao of programming