|
From: | Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores |
Date: | Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:38:33 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4 |
On 11/04/2009 01:24 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
BTW, it wouldn't be ambiguous to the program, nor would it be different than the existing meaning, but as you say, users could mistakenly do -P0 when they meant -0P. So I'll make the arg mandatory, but what to choose? "n" is all I can come up with in my half awake state. I'll sleep on it.
I propose that --parallel is the same as -P<num-procs>.I would go a step further and deprecate --num-procs=NNN while making --parallel[=NNN] the new "long" version of -P. Long options (unlike short options) are safer when it comes to optional arguments, so --parallel's argument could indeed be optional (while -P would keep the mandatory argument). The name change would be needed however to have an optional argument.
Paolo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |