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.