[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inconsistencies in boolean parameters
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: Inconsistencies in boolean parameters |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:18:09 +0100 |
On 02/07/2013 03:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> While working on my guide, I've noticed that there is an inconsistency
> with the way boolean parameters are passed.
>
> AM_MAINTAINER_MODE expects [enable] to be on-by-default.
>
(Side note: using AM_MAINTAINER_MODE these days is generally a bad idea
IMHO; we should find a way to deprecate its usage in documentation, and
eventually start warning at runtime if it is used -- and don't worry,
with *no* plans for a later removal!)
> AM_SILENT_RULES expects [yes] to be on-by-default.
>
Indeed, using 'enable' instead of 'yes' and 'disable' instead of 'no' would
be (marginally) clearer, and more consistent with the implied command line
of configure (which accepts the options '--enable-silent-rules' and
'--disable-silent-rules').
> Maybe it's something to keep in mind for future cleanups to accept both
> forms, and normalize the documentation?
>
Sure, why not. As usual, in the meantime, patches are welcome.
Thanks,
Stefano
- Inconsistencies in boolean parameters, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/07
- Re: Inconsistencies in boolean parameters,
Stefano Lattarini <=
- AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Bob Friesenhahn, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/07
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/02/09
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, immanuel litzroth, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Russ Allbery, 2013/02/08
- Re: AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, Ineiev, 2013/02/09