[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Make ff* recognize ------long-gnu-options

[Måns Rullgård]

Baptiste Coudurier <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> writes:

> On 12/14/2009 04:29 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Rodney Baker<rodney.baker at iinet.net.au>  writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:21:31 Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>>> On date Monday 2009-12-14 01:28:06 +0100, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 07:00:48PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, I don't know if skipping an undeterminated number of '-' is a
>>>>>> misfeature but was easy to implement and I find it quite funny to run
>>>>>> ffmpeg ------------------help, we can reduce the number of skipped '-'
>>>>>> to 2 if requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patches attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this is funny but i think it does little good ...
>>>>> it could confuse people and scripts could become dependant on it and then
>>>>> we cant even remove it wihout pissing people off.
>>>>
>>>> So what about to accept at least both -foo and --foo options?
>>>> [..]
>>>
>>> Pardon me for butting in (I'm usually only an interested observer on this
>>> list) but wouldn't it be better to stick to the normally accepted convention
>>> of -f (short option) or --foo (long option) (remembering of course that not
>>> every short option necessarily has a matching long option and vice versa)?
>>>
>>> Having it behave the same as other GNU/Linux apps makes things much
>>> easier to remember, especially when scripting.
>>
>> There are many apps that do not follow that style.  Examples include
>> all the traditional X utilities.  Imagemagick also comes to mind.
>>
>> I see no reason whatsoever to change the existing syntax of FFmpeg.
>
> On a side not, I think many users would like position independant options.

And ffmpeg would magically apply the options to the correct file
(input/output), or what?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com