CLIENT-SPECIFICATION: rephrase requirement to implement option variants #15772
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The new phrasing does not imply that all options have a short and long form specified in the table.
niklasmohrin
requested review from
sbrl,
kbdharun and
sebastiaanspeck
as code owners
|
|
github-actions
bot
added
the
documentation
kbdharun
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2025
kbdharun
changed the title
|
LGTM, thanks for the addition. |
sebastiaanspeck
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The new phrasing does not imply that all options have a short and long form specified in the table.
The motivation for this change is to allow adding options that only have a long form. In particular, I was aiming for such an option in #15253 (comment) but there was no agreement on whether or not this change would be backwards compatible.
Given that all current entries in the table have both a short and long form, the implication is equivalent for both statements. Thus, this is not a breaking change.
Regardless of whether or not we keep the
-Sand-Eflags around, I think this rephrasing makes sense so that future additions could use long forms only. Requiring only the long form of an option makes sense to release a new feature without reserving a letter for a short flag right away. Later releases of the client specification can still add a short form flag for the same option.