> If so, I would vote for:
> -f script1.bench:3 -f script2.bench:1
> over:
> -f script1.bench -w 3 -f script2.bench -w 1
Ok, I'll take that into consideration. Any other opinion out there? The
current v3 version is:
-w 3 -f script1.bench -w 1 -f script2.bench
With provision to generate errors if a -w is set but not used,
in two case.
- in the middle ... -w 4 <no script option...> -w 1 ... - in the end ... -w 1 <no script option...>
I can provide -f x:weight easilly, but this mean that there will be no way
to associate weight for internal scripts. Not orthogonal, not very
elegant, but no big deal.
> Oh, you misunderstand. "script1" and "script2" are meant to be
> user-supplied names which then get reported in things like response time
> output. They're labels.
Ok, that is much better. This means that labels should not choose names
which may interact with other commands, so maybe a list would have been
nice as well. Anyway, I do not think it is the way to go just for this
feature.
--
Fabien.