Re: debugging config files options
Daniel Stenberg via curl-users <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.curl.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > Does the -v option provide significant additional information during > parsing? Many commands have -v or -d options, and .rc files - do we know > what they do? My guess is that for most commands -v doesn't affect parsing, > so there isn't a problem for them. -v is for "verbose" so I figured it was natural to use that. I would really prefer to not add a new option. > What is the reason to only examine the first option? Even if documented, > that restriction would be missed by most users. I agree that it is quirky and unfortunate. The reason is of course that our command line parser parses and acts on the content in the same phase, so we cannot easily check the entire command line for a verbose option without also reading all the specified config files etc. This is basically the best idea I came up with that avoids a new option and still works. > How costly would it be to scan the entire command line? Would that mean > having a fixed maximum length for the command line? Primarily it would need a refactor that would first split up the entire command line into options and their arguments (so that we can scan for a verbose option among them) - then in a second phase act on them. A significantly larger change than the 35 lines my current patch is! :-) > Sorry for all the questions. No need, they're perfectly sensible! My first take and draft pull request for this feature is here: https://github.com/curl/curl/pull/13295 -- / daniel.haxx.se | Commercial curl support up to 24x7 is available! | Private help, bug fixes, support, ports, new features | https://curl.se/support.html -- Unsubscribe: https://lists.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/curl-users Etiquette: https://curl.se/mail/etiquette.html