On 11 June 2012 22:40, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On sön, 2012-06-10 at 13:43 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> > On tis, 2012-05-29 at 22:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> >> Yeah, good arguments all around, i agree too :-) Next question is -
>>> >> suggestions for naming of said paramter?
>>> >
>>> > --xlog-method=something? And/or -Xsomething, which would automatically
>>> > enable -x?
>>>
>>> How's this?
>>
>> I wouldn't make -x and -X exclusive. The way I understood this is, -x
>> means include xlog, and -X says how to.
>>
>> I guess either way of looking at it has its merits.
>
> I guess it's basically two ways of doing the same thing. I'm not
> especially attached to either one of them, so if you think the ohter
> one is better, I won't object to changing it.
+1 for not telling the user off for being explicit by stating both options.
--
Thom