[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on setopt
From: |
Rudolf Adamkovič |
Subject: |
Re: Comments on setopt |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:04:23 +0100 |
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Setting a command line option is not especially common.
>
> […]
>
> The only reason to use `setopt' is to for parallelism with `getopt'.
A command line option?
> I don't think it calls for a name of only 6 characters -- if I were
> choosing one afresh, I think I would choose `set-command-option'.
I agree on unnecessary brevity.
Why not call it `set-user-option', given its description?
"This is like ‘setq’, but is meant for user options […]"
Rudy
--
"It is no paradox to say that in our most theoretical moods we may be
nearest to our most practical applications."
-- Alfred North Whitehead, 1861-1947
Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia
- Comments on setopt, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/02/14
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Richard Stallman, 2022/02/18
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/02/19