[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:21:55 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Do we need --list=formats?
On 06/05/2012 08:29 AM, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> While for bash completion, parsing usage output is fine, a GUI might
> want to list additional information, e.g. FORMAT_NAME and may be even
> implementation details like [128/128 BS SSE2] (so that the user might
> see which formats support OMP...)
> How hard would implementing this be?
The hardest part may be to decide the exact output format.
> While we are at it:
> Should we also add a --list=subformats, which does the same as
> --subformat=LIST, except that it writes to stdout instead of stderr?
This is trivial, and dynamic_DISPLAY_ALL_FORMATS() already writes to stdout.
> Then we could discourage the use of --subformat=LIST.
> (My bash completion script could even try to replace --subformat with
> --list=subformats.)
> And in the next release we just get rid of --subformats?
Yes. We could pull it from the usage blob immediately and drop the
support later. We might add --list to the usage instead, with a
description like:
--list=WHAT List capabilities, see doc/OPTIONS or --list=?
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
