std.getopt suggestion

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, September 30, 2011 10:30 Christophe wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145845), a écrit :
> >> ahem
> > 
> > ??? Please elaborate.
> 
> Let me guess: He considers their is not enough improvement to justify a
> breaking change. It's quite obvious, since he considers this is a
> negative improvement.

I wasn't talking about having to change the name because of possible changes 
to the mutable global variables. I was talking about the fact that we may want 
to change the defaults as far as the config enum goes. The pull request has an 
improvement to those options which it is currently listing as "recommended" in 
the docs, because changing the defaults would silently break code. Changing 
the name would fix that problem. It would also mean that getopt could then 
match Phobos' naming conventions. If we don't change the defaults, then it's 
more debatable as to whether it's worth fixing the name so that it matches 
Phobos' naming conventions - particularly in light of the fact that the name 
getopt is fairly common.

Regardless, if Andrei (or anyone) wants me (or anyone else) to understand what 
they mean in post, they need to be clear, and Andrei was not clear in this 
particular case - hence why I'm asking for clarification. Your assessment of 
what he meant may or may not be correct.

- Jonathan M Davis