Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:59:20 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-doc@freebsd.org" <freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>, Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> Subject: Re: docs/184550: bc -q option not documented in man page Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1312062240090.58092@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgm7qqE5cd-ax7=LipUGJpSA19ZJeJ1%2B_ZqpCqCfMU_cPw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201312070107.rB717SAW015758@freefall.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgk50a0gL7_O3t=iFM-XGjnwam07ZNkOOgsWV=Tu7OKDXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131207021835.GK20078@glenbarber.us> <CAF6rxgm7qqE5cd-ax7=LipUGJpSA19ZJeJ1%2B_ZqpCqCfMU_cPw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013, Eitan Adler wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 09:12:30PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> all options should be documented. An undocumented option is a bug. >>> If we don't want people using it we should document as such. >>> >> >> It is documented. >> >> case 'q': >> /* compatibility option */ >> break; > > Source code is not documentation. It it surprising to hear that, > especially on this list. This is a bit puzzling. If -q is secret somehow, let's take it out of the synopsis. If it's real, it should be in the synopsis and description. -q No-op, does nil, nothing, nada. Emphatically not for compatibility with GNU bc, but coincidentally allows scripts from icky other platforms where -q does something to run without error. May occasionally print "gravy-sucking pig-dog" or contain traces of soy, nuts, eggs, titanium, and riboflavin, all part of a really interesting alibi.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1312062240090.58092>