How about omitting the word 'default'?
[--adminport <adminport(4848)>]
[--transport <transport(tcp)>]
[--enabled <enabled(true)>]
This loses too much methinks, which is why an *example* is so
important (and never provided in most clis--one has to be an expert to
know how to use the help!):
[--adminport 4848]
[--transport tcp]
[--enabled (true)]
lloyd
On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Nandini Ektare wrote:
>> I'd be happy to do something like that, but I think that syntax is
>> problematic.
>> How would people feel about something like this:
>>
>> [--adminport <adminport(default:4848)>]
>> [--transport <transport(default:tcp)>]
>> [--enabled=<enabled(default:true)>]
> [Thinking aloud] It sure does give more info. But if there were
> bugs, as docs team stated, because someone used 4848 as is, this
> kind of nomenclature as well as the one above seems to have a high
> bugs potential. Plus some of the commands with many options are
> already pretty lengthy. Such verbose usage will reduce the usage
> reference appeal further. To me, usage has to be short as it is a
> means of quick reference. If the user needs more info on any
> particular option, man page should provide all the details needed.
> But then again any existing standards and practices on this may have
> better reasons to support such detailed usage text.
Lloyd Chambers
lloyd.chambers_at_sun.com
GlassFish Team