[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wdiff-bugs] colliding documented -t options for mdiff

From: Denver Gingerich
Subject: Re: [wdiff-bugs] colliding documented -t options for mdiff
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:16:45 -0400

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Benno Schulenberg
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
> The Info document for mdiff mentions the -t option twice:
> `--threshold=NUMBER'
> `-t NUMBER'
> `--terminal'
> `-t'
> Which one is right?

Neither.  In the long_options array in mdiff.c, -t has two long
options associated with it, --expand-tabs and --tolerance.  Of course,
this is wrong.  Only one long option should be associated with -t.

In fact, running "mdiff -t" causes a segfault on my system, possibly
due to the double-definition of -t's long option.  I will investigate
this issue further, with the aim to fix it for the 0.5.94 release.

The docs definitely need some work here.  I would really appreciate
help with synchronizing the actually option behaviors and the

> Also, it would be nice to have the options ordered in one way or
> another, probably alphabetically by their short forms, maybe
> keeping --help and --version at the start, but then -1, -2, -3,
> -A, -i, -l, -n, -p, -t, -w, -x, -y, -z.

The options are currently grouped by function (more or less).  For
example, -l, -p, and -t all emphasize output and thus are grouped
together.  If you see an option that is obviously grouped with
unrelated options, let me know.  I don't see a huge need to switch to
alphabetical ordering of the options, especially when an ordering
already exists.

> Hmm, 'mdiff --help' mentions different single letter options than
> the Info document, and several more of them.

Yes.  In general, "mdiff --help" more accurately reflects the actual
behavior of the program and, as mentioned, some synchronization of
this output and the documentation is needed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]