Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

[Paolo Bonzini]

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