[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing
From: |
Ole Tange |
Subject: |
Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:04:14 +0200 |
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Rasmus Villemoes <rv@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> How about
> allowing --halt be given multiple times, with each invocation overriding
> certain aspects of the behaviour requested so far. Then one could do
>
> --halt 25% --halt 2
>
> with --halt 25% --halt 1 being the same as --halt 25% by
> itself. Encountering --halt 0 would restore the default behaviour.
>
> I really prefer when any command-line option can be overridden (or reset
> to the default) by a later option
Agreed.
I am not fond of the repeating argument, though.
How about:
--halt 2,25% == --halt 25%,2
Then --halt <<whatever>> would override that.
> (instead of the
> error-prone process of trimming the current list of options, where one
> has to be careful with --halt=25% versus --halt 25% etc.).
Are you aware that --foo X is the same as --foo=X ?
> Not sure my proposal is better - just thinking out loud.
And keep the ideas coming. The more ideas we get on the table the
better a solution we will find.
/Ole
- New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Martin d'Anjou, 2015/04/21
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Ole Tange, 2015/04/22
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing,
Ole Tange <=
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Rasmus Villemoes, 2015/04/25
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Ole Tange, 2015/04/26
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Ole Tange, 2015/04/26
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Martin d'Anjou, 2015/04/27
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Ole Tange, 2015/04/27
- Re: New behavior proposal --halt -% with job killing, Ole Tange, 2015/04/27