Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 20:45:38 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Should we add --make_check to --list=hidden-options? On 07/05/2012 08:16 PM, Solar Designer wrote: > As to adding it to --list=hidden-options, I don't mind, but I see little > need. It is meant to be used by "make check" only. Today I saw a useful difference to --test=0: --make_check doesn't test the user defined dynamic formats. It doesn't read the config files, and apparently also works with a broken config. So far, --make_check is also the only option using an underscore in the name. And opposed to other options with an ambiguous abbreviated name, the existence of --make_check doesn't prevent --make=filename.chr from working. That's probably because --make_check isn't part of the usual option handling, e.g., it is also impossible to use an abbreviated option name like --make_ch to invoke the "make check" functionality. If this will be true even for future john versions, I have to take this into account if I ever switch to a generic approach in john.bash_completion. The idea is to avoid ugly patterns like this one: -?(-)m?(a|ak|ake|ake-|ake-c|ake-ch|ake-cha|ake-char|ake-chars|ake-charse|ake-charset)+(=|:)*) And also to get rid of the hard coded tests for uniqueness of abbreviated option names, by automatically generating mappings of abbreviated option names to their full names - as long as the abbreviated option name is still unique. Frank
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.