Re: [pcp] pcp updates: pcp sub-commands (WIP)

[Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/04/13 16:57, Nathan Scott wrote:

> > You can add --fluff support syntax if you wish, but this is (a) extra
> > and (b) not mandated ... so I am not sure of the point, independent of
> > my religious objections to this style of command line arguments (yes, I
> > am a dinosaur, but I don't think --help, rather than -\?, has ever
> > helped me solve a usability problem).
> Eh?  Not sure what that has to do with this commit.  Long arguments are
> an orthogonal issue, this commit will work with or without them, doesn't
> affect this.
Yes orthogonal, but in the general area of command line argument 
processing ... 8()
> ...  It
> is entirely possible we three are all in violent agreement here).
May be ... it would certainly help (me) to see some example use cases of 
how you imagine this is going to work.
> Giving up is not an option!  ;)
Don't knock until you've tried it ... 8^)>