[9front] ramfs usage

[9front] ramfs usage

[me+unobe]

I was looking at ramfs and noticed that the ordering of some flags
provided inconsistent behavior.  For example:

    cpu% ramfs -s -m /n/foo
    cpu% cpu% ls -l /n
    d-rwxrwxrwx M 83820 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
    cpu% ramfs -m /n/boo -s
    cpu% ls -l /n
    d-rwxrwxrwx M 83788 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
	cpu%

To address this, I think that -m should always add a mountpoint,
unless -i is used.

I also noticed that:

 * a few of the (non-debugging) flags were not documented in the man
 page: -b, -a, and -c to set the mount flags.

 * -i is mutually exclusive with -s, -S, and -m, -b, -a, and -c but
 that isn't clearly spelled out.  If -s, -S, and -m are used together,
 that seems like a fatal error to me, but if -b, -a, -c are used, that
 is an ignorable error that can be mentioned on stderr. For instance:

    cpu% ramfs -i -b
    mount flags ignored when using -i: 
	cpu% ramfs -s -i
    ramfs: -i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag
	cpu% 

 * A sysfatal() error would never happen because mtpt is always
 defined when srvname is not, and vice versa, because mtpt is set by
 default and only unset when srvname is set.

I offer the attached patch for consideration.

From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:52:36 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: document usage and provide clearer usage errors


Allow -m to be used to set mountpoint when used with -s and -S,
of ordering. Document flags -b, -a, and -c; document interaction
between certain flags, and raise errors when mis-use occurs.
---
diff 7089a0e8dc50d86dce93176d284e23f82e5d2bdf 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae
--- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
+++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 .SH SYNOPSIS
 .B ramfs
 [
-.B -Dipsu
+.B -Dipsubac
 ]
 [
 .B -m
@@ -15,30 +15,50 @@
 .I srvname
 ]
 .SH DESCRIPTION
+.PP
 .I Ramfs
-starts a process that mounts itself (see
-.IR bind (2))
-on
-.I mountpoint
-(default
-.BR /tmp ).
+implements a file tree which keeps all files in memory.
+Initially the file tree is empty.
+.PP
 The
 .I ramfs
-process implements a file tree rooted at
-.IR dir ,
-keeping all files in memory.
-Initially the file tree is empty.
+process mounts the
+.IR mountpoint (or
+.B /tmp ,
+if not provided)
+with the mount flags
+.B MREPL and
+.B MCREATE .
+The mount flags can be set explicitly
+using
+.B -b ,
+.B -a , and
+.B -c ,
+corresponding respectively to the flags
+.B MBEFORE ,
+.B MAFTER , or
+.B MCREATE (see
+.IR bind(2)).
 .PP
 The
-.B -D
-option enables a trace of general debugging messages.
+.B -p
+flag causes
+.I ramfs
+to make its memory `private'
+(see
+.IR proc (3))
+so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
 .PP
 The
+.B -D
+flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
+.PP
 .B -i
 flag tells
 .I ramfs
 to use file descriptors 0 and 1 for its communication channel
-rather than create a pipe.
+rather than create a pipe or mount at
+.IR mountpoint .
 This makes it possible to use
 .I ramfs
 as a file server on a remote machine: the file descriptors 0
@@ -47,15 +67,6 @@
 to the client machine.
 .PP
 The
-.B -p
-flag causes
-.I ramfs
-to make its memory `private'
-(see
-.IR proc (3))
-so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
-.PP
-The
 .B -s
 .RB ( -S )
 flag causes
@@ -62,17 +73,26 @@
 .I ramfs
 to post its channel on
 .B /srv/ramfs
-.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR)
-rather than mounting it on
-.IR mountpoint ,
+.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR) ,
 enabling multiple clients to access its files.
-However, it does not authenticate its clients and its
+The flag also causes
+.I ramfs
+to not use the default
+.IR mountpoint
+.B /tmp ,
+however it will use the mountpoint
+.IR mountpoint
+explicit;y set using the
+.B -m
+flag.
+.I Ramfs
+does not authenticate its clients and its
 implementation of groups is simplistic, so
 it should not be used for precious data.
 .PP
 The
 .B -u
-option permits
+flag permits
 .I ramfs
 to consume as much memory as needed;
 without it,
@@ -86,4 +106,5 @@
 .SH SOURCE
 .B /sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
 .SH "SEE ALSO"
-.IR bind (2)
+.IR bind (2) ,
+.IR proc (3)
--- a/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
+++ b/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
@@ -455,27 +455,40 @@
 {
 	char *srvname = nil;
 	char *mtpt = "/tmp";
-	int mountflags, stdio;
+	int marg, mountflags, stdio;
 
 	fs.tree = alloctree(nil, nil, DMDIR|0777, fsdestroyfile);
 
-	mountflags = stdio = 0;
+	marg = mountflags = stdio = 0;
 	ARGBEGIN{
 	case 'D':
 		chatty9p++;
 		break;
 	case 's':
+		if(stdio)
+			sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -i flag");
 		srvname = "ramfs";
-		mtpt = nil;
+		if(marg == 0)
+			mtpt = nil;
 		break;
 	case 'S':
+		if(stdio)
+			sysfatal("-S cannot be used with -i flag");
+		if(srvname)
+			sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -S");
 		srvname = EARGF(usage());
-		mtpt = nil;
+		if(marg == 0)
+			mtpt = nil;
 		break;
 	case 'm':
+		if(stdio)
+			sysfatal("-m cannot be used with -i flag");
 		mtpt = EARGF(usage());
+		marg = 1;
 		break;
 	case 'i':
+		if(srvname || marg)
+			sysfatal("-i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag");
 		stdio = 1;
 		break;
 	case 'p':
@@ -500,14 +513,14 @@
 		usage();
 
 	if(stdio){
+		if(mountflags)
+			perror("mount flags ignored when using -i");
+
 		fs.infd = 0;
 		fs.outfd = 1;
 		srv(&fs);
 		exits(0);
 	}
-
-	if(srvname == nil && mtpt == nil)
-		sysfatal("must specify -S, or -m option");
 
 	if(mountflags == 0)
 		mountflags = MREPL | MCREATE;

Re: [9front] ramfs usage

[Romano]

Oy. I see two typos in the man page that I introduced: a
missing 'The' before describing the -i flag and misspelling
of explicity.

From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:18:55 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: fix typos in man page

---
diff 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae b373869e8319c8d25b27db40929e5d19c1371659
--- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
+++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
 .B -D
 flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
 .PP
+The
 .B -i
 flag tells
 .I ramfs
@@ -82,7 +83,7 @@
 .B /tmp ,
 however it will use the mountpoint
 .IR mountpoint
-explicit;y set using the
+explicitly set using the
 .B -m
 flag.
 .I Ramfs

Re: [9front] ramfs usage

[Romano]

Ping. Here's a cleaned up patch:
http://okturing.com/src/20102/body

Re: [9front] ramfs usage

[ori]

Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(

Quoth me+unobe@fallglow.com:
> I was looking at ramfs and noticed that the ordering of some flags
> provided inconsistent behavior.  For example:
> 
>     cpu% ramfs -s -m /n/foo
>     cpu% cpu% ls -l /n
>     d-rwxrwxrwx M 83820 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
>     cpu% ramfs -m /n/boo -s
>     cpu% ls -l /n
>     d-rwxrwxrwx M 83788 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
> 	cpu%
> 
> To address this, I think that -m should always add a mountpoint,
> unless -i is used.
> 
> I also noticed that:
> 
>  * a few of the (non-debugging) flags were not documented in the man
>  page: -b, -a, and -c to set the mount flags.
> 
>  * -i is mutually exclusive with -s, -S, and -m, -b, -a, and -c but
>  that isn't clearly spelled out.  If -s, -S, and -m are used together,
>  that seems like a fatal error to me, but if -b, -a, -c are used, that
>  is an ignorable error that can be mentioned on stderr. For instance:
> 
>     cpu% ramfs -i -b
>     mount flags ignored when using -i: 
> 	cpu% ramfs -s -i
>     ramfs: -i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag
> 	cpu% 
> 
>  * A sysfatal() error would never happen because mtpt is always
>  defined when srvname is not, and vice versa, because mtpt is set by
>  default and only unset when srvname is set.
> 
> I offer the attached patch for consideration.
> 
> From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:52:36 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: document usage and provide clearer usage errors
> 
> 
> Allow -m to be used to set mountpoint when used with -s and -S,
> of ordering. Document flags -b, -a, and -c; document interaction
> between certain flags, and raise errors when mis-use occurs.
> ---
> diff 7089a0e8dc50d86dce93176d284e23f82e5d2bdf 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae
> --- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
> +++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>  .SH SYNOPSIS
>  .B ramfs
>  [
> -.B -Dipsu
> +.B -Dipsubac
>  ]
>  [
>  .B -m
> @@ -15,30 +15,50 @@
>  .I srvname
>  ]
>  .SH DESCRIPTION
> +.PP
>  .I Ramfs
> -starts a process that mounts itself (see
> -.IR bind (2))
> -on
> -.I mountpoint
> -(default
> -.BR /tmp ).
> +implements a file tree which keeps all files in memory.
> +Initially the file tree is empty.
> +.PP
>  The
>  .I ramfs
> -process implements a file tree rooted at
> -.IR dir ,
> -keeping all files in memory.
> -Initially the file tree is empty.
> +process mounts the
> +.IR mountpoint (or
> +.B /tmp ,
> +if not provided)
> +with the mount flags
> +.B MREPL and
> +.B MCREATE .
> +The mount flags can be set explicitly
> +using
> +.B -b ,
> +.B -a , and
> +.B -c ,
> +corresponding respectively to the flags
> +.B MBEFORE ,
> +.B MAFTER , or
> +.B MCREATE (see
> +.IR bind(2)).
>  .PP
>  The
> -.B -D
> -option enables a trace of general debugging messages.
> +.B -p
> +flag causes
> +.I ramfs
> +to make its memory `private'
> +(see
> +.IR proc (3))
> +so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
>  .PP
>  The
> +.B -D
> +flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
> +.PP
>  .B -i
>  flag tells
>  .I ramfs
>  to use file descriptors 0 and 1 for its communication channel
> -rather than create a pipe.
> +rather than create a pipe or mount at
> +.IR mountpoint .
>  This makes it possible to use
>  .I ramfs
>  as a file server on a remote machine: the file descriptors 0
> @@ -47,15 +67,6 @@
>  to the client machine.
>  .PP
>  The
> -.B -p
> -flag causes
> -.I ramfs
> -to make its memory `private'
> -(see
> -.IR proc (3))
> -so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
> -.PP
> -The
>  .B -s
>  .RB ( -S )
>  flag causes
> @@ -62,17 +73,26 @@
>  .I ramfs
>  to post its channel on
>  .B /srv/ramfs
> -.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR)
> -rather than mounting it on
> -.IR mountpoint ,
> +.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR) ,
>  enabling multiple clients to access its files.
> -However, it does not authenticate its clients and its
> +The flag also causes
> +.I ramfs
> +to not use the default
> +.IR mountpoint
> +.B /tmp ,
> +however it will use the mountpoint
> +.IR mountpoint
> +explicit;y set using the
> +.B -m
> +flag.
> +.I Ramfs
> +does not authenticate its clients and its
>  implementation of groups is simplistic, so
>  it should not be used for precious data.
>  .PP
>  The
>  .B -u
> -option permits
> +flag permits
>  .I ramfs
>  to consume as much memory as needed;
>  without it,
> @@ -86,4 +106,5 @@
>  .SH SOURCE
>  .B /sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>  .SH "SEE ALSO"
> -.IR bind (2)
> +.IR bind (2) ,
> +.IR proc (3)
> --- a/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
> +++ b/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
> @@ -455,27 +455,40 @@
>  {
>  	char *srvname = nil;
>  	char *mtpt = "/tmp";
> -	int mountflags, stdio;
> +	int marg, mountflags, stdio;
>  
>  	fs.tree = alloctree(nil, nil, DMDIR|0777, fsdestroyfile);
>  
> -	mountflags = stdio = 0;
> +	marg = mountflags = stdio = 0;
>  	ARGBEGIN{
>  	case 'D':
>  		chatty9p++;
>  		break;
>  	case 's':
> +		if(stdio)
> +			sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -i flag");
>  		srvname = "ramfs";
> -		mtpt = nil;
> +		if(marg == 0)
> +			mtpt = nil;
>  		break;
>  	case 'S':
> +		if(stdio)
> +			sysfatal("-S cannot be used with -i flag");
> +		if(srvname)
> +			sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -S");
>  		srvname = EARGF(usage());
> -		mtpt = nil;
> +		if(marg == 0)
> +			mtpt = nil;
>  		break;
>  	case 'm':
> +		if(stdio)
> +			sysfatal("-m cannot be used with -i flag");
>  		mtpt = EARGF(usage());
> +		marg = 1;
>  		break;
>  	case 'i':
> +		if(srvname || marg)
> +			sysfatal("-i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag");
>  		stdio = 1;
>  		break;
>  	case 'p':
> @@ -500,14 +513,14 @@
>  		usage();
>  
>  	if(stdio){
> +		if(mountflags)
> +			perror("mount flags ignored when using -i");
> +
>  		fs.infd = 0;
>  		fs.outfd = 1;
>  		srv(&fs);
>  		exits(0);
>  	}
> -
> -	if(srvname == nil && mtpt == nil)
> -		sysfatal("must specify -S, or -m option");
>  
>  	if(mountflags == 0)
>  		mountflags = MREPL | MCREATE;

Re: [9front] ramfs usage

[Jacob Moody]

My vote would be to keep things as is.

While it is not a great precedent, a large chunk of code
from what I've seen don't throw errors for nonsensical combinations.
If doing things from scratch I would think perhaps its worth the effort
to check for, but it is probably too late to set this precedent and modifying
programs after the fact. I just don't want this to be the start of this happening
to every program.

A lot of these man page changes seem like a general rewrite, in particular the
change of "option" to "flag" which feels off.

It just doesn't seem the benefits outweigh the cost of the churn to me.


Thanks,
Moody

On 6/19/24 15:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
> to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(
> 
> Quoth me+unobe@fallglow.com:
>> I was looking at ramfs and noticed that the ordering of some flags
>> provided inconsistent behavior.  For example:
>>
>>     cpu% ramfs -s -m /n/foo
>>     cpu% cpu% ls -l /n
>>     d-rwxrwxrwx M 83820 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
>>     cpu% ramfs -m /n/boo -s
>>     cpu% ls -l /n
>>     d-rwxrwxrwx M 83788 david david 0 May 16 12:29 /n/foo
>> 	cpu%
>>
>> To address this, I think that -m should always add a mountpoint,
>> unless -i is used.
>>
>> I also noticed that:
>>
>>  * a few of the (non-debugging) flags were not documented in the man
>>  page: -b, -a, and -c to set the mount flags.
>>
>>  * -i is mutually exclusive with -s, -S, and -m, -b, -a, and -c but
>>  that isn't clearly spelled out.  If -s, -S, and -m are used together,
>>  that seems like a fatal error to me, but if -b, -a, -c are used, that
>>  is an ignorable error that can be mentioned on stderr. For instance:
>>
>>     cpu% ramfs -i -b
>>     mount flags ignored when using -i: 
>> 	cpu% ramfs -s -i
>>     ramfs: -i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag
>> 	cpu% 
>>
>>  * A sysfatal() error would never happen because mtpt is always
>>  defined when srvname is not, and vice versa, because mtpt is set by
>>  default and only unset when srvname is set.
>>
>> I offer the attached patch for consideration.
>>
>> From: Romano <me+git@fallglow.com>
>> Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:52:36 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH] ramfs: document usage and provide clearer usage errors
>>
>>
>> Allow -m to be used to set mountpoint when used with -s and -S,
>> of ordering. Document flags -b, -a, and -c; document interaction
>> between certain flags, and raise errors when mis-use occurs.
>> ---
>> diff 7089a0e8dc50d86dce93176d284e23f82e5d2bdf 0b55b43b99d97129a0ca0731243d1edc7bbbb6ae
>> --- a/sys/man/4/ramfs
>> +++ b/sys/man/4/ramfs
>> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>>  .SH SYNOPSIS
>>  .B ramfs
>>  [
>> -.B -Dipsu
>> +.B -Dipsubac
>>  ]
>>  [
>>  .B -m
>> @@ -15,30 +15,50 @@
>>  .I srvname
>>  ]
>>  .SH DESCRIPTION
>> +.PP
>>  .I Ramfs
>> -starts a process that mounts itself (see
>> -.IR bind (2))
>> -on
>> -.I mountpoint
>> -(default
>> -.BR /tmp ).
>> +implements a file tree which keeps all files in memory.
>> +Initially the file tree is empty.
>> +.PP
>>  The
>>  .I ramfs
>> -process implements a file tree rooted at
>> -.IR dir ,
>> -keeping all files in memory.
>> -Initially the file tree is empty.
>> +process mounts the
>> +.IR mountpoint (or
>> +.B /tmp ,
>> +if not provided)
>> +with the mount flags
>> +.B MREPL and
>> +.B MCREATE .
>> +The mount flags can be set explicitly
>> +using
>> +.B -b ,
>> +.B -a , and
>> +.B -c ,
>> +corresponding respectively to the flags
>> +.B MBEFORE ,
>> +.B MAFTER , or
>> +.B MCREATE (see
>> +.IR bind(2)).
>>  .PP
>>  The
>> -.B -D
>> -option enables a trace of general debugging messages.
>> +.B -p
>> +flag causes
>> +.I ramfs
>> +to make its memory `private'
>> +(see
>> +.IR proc (3))
>> +so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
>>  .PP
>>  The
>> +.B -D
>> +flag enables a trace of general debugging messages.
>> +.PP
>>  .B -i
>>  flag tells
>>  .I ramfs
>>  to use file descriptors 0 and 1 for its communication channel
>> -rather than create a pipe.
>> +rather than create a pipe or mount at
>> +.IR mountpoint .
>>  This makes it possible to use
>>  .I ramfs
>>  as a file server on a remote machine: the file descriptors 0
>> @@ -47,15 +67,6 @@
>>  to the client machine.
>>  .PP
>>  The
>> -.B -p
>> -flag causes
>> -.I ramfs
>> -to make its memory `private'
>> -(see
>> -.IR proc (3))
>> -so that its files are not accessible through the debugging interface.
>> -.PP
>> -The
>>  .B -s
>>  .RB ( -S )
>>  flag causes
>> @@ -62,17 +73,26 @@
>>  .I ramfs
>>  to post its channel on
>>  .B /srv/ramfs
>> -.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR)
>> -rather than mounting it on
>> -.IR mountpoint ,
>> +.RB ( /srv/ \fIsrvname\fR) ,
>>  enabling multiple clients to access its files.
>> -However, it does not authenticate its clients and its
>> +The flag also causes
>> +.I ramfs
>> +to not use the default
>> +.IR mountpoint
>> +.B /tmp ,
>> +however it will use the mountpoint
>> +.IR mountpoint
>> +explicit;y set using the
>> +.B -m
>> +flag.
>> +.I Ramfs
>> +does not authenticate its clients and its
>>  implementation of groups is simplistic, so
>>  it should not be used for precious data.
>>  .PP
>>  The
>>  .B -u
>> -option permits
>> +flag permits
>>  .I ramfs
>>  to consume as much memory as needed;
>>  without it,
>> @@ -86,4 +106,5 @@
>>  .SH SOURCE
>>  .B /sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>>  .SH "SEE ALSO"
>> -.IR bind (2)
>> +.IR bind (2) ,
>> +.IR proc (3)
>> --- a/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>> +++ b/sys/src/cmd/ramfs.c
>> @@ -455,27 +455,40 @@
>>  {
>>  	char *srvname = nil;
>>  	char *mtpt = "/tmp";
>> -	int mountflags, stdio;
>> +	int marg, mountflags, stdio;
>>  
>>  	fs.tree = alloctree(nil, nil, DMDIR|0777, fsdestroyfile);
>>  
>> -	mountflags = stdio = 0;
>> +	marg = mountflags = stdio = 0;
>>  	ARGBEGIN{
>>  	case 'D':
>>  		chatty9p++;
>>  		break;
>>  	case 's':
>> +		if(stdio)
>> +			sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -i flag");
>>  		srvname = "ramfs";
>> -		mtpt = nil;
>> +		if(marg == 0)
>> +			mtpt = nil;
>>  		break;
>>  	case 'S':
>> +		if(stdio)
>> +			sysfatal("-S cannot be used with -i flag");
>> +		if(srvname)
>> +			sysfatal("-s cannot be used with -S");
>>  		srvname = EARGF(usage());
>> -		mtpt = nil;
>> +		if(marg == 0)
>> +			mtpt = nil;
>>  		break;
>>  	case 'm':
>> +		if(stdio)
>> +			sysfatal("-m cannot be used with -i flag");
>>  		mtpt = EARGF(usage());
>> +		marg = 1;
>>  		break;
>>  	case 'i':
>> +		if(srvname || marg)
>> +			sysfatal("-i cannot be used with -s, -S, or -m flag");
>>  		stdio = 1;
>>  		break;
>>  	case 'p':
>> @@ -500,14 +513,14 @@
>>  		usage();
>>  
>>  	if(stdio){
>> +		if(mountflags)
>> +			perror("mount flags ignored when using -i");
>> +
>>  		fs.infd = 0;
>>  		fs.outfd = 1;
>>  		srv(&fs);
>>  		exits(0);
>>  	}
>> -
>> -	if(srvname == nil && mtpt == nil)
>> -		sysfatal("must specify -S, or -m option");
>>  
>>  	if(mountflags == 0)
>>  		mountflags = MREPL | MCREATE;
> 

Re: [9front] ramfs usage

[Romano]

On Wed Jun 19 14:23:38 -0700 2024, moody@posixcafe.org wrote:
> My vote would be to keep things as is.
> 
> While it is not a great precedent, a large chunk of code
> from what I've seen don't throw errors for nonsensical combinations.
> If doing things from scratch I would think perhaps its worth the effort
> to check for, but it is probably too late to set this precedent and modifying
> programs after the fact. I just don't want this to be the start of this happening
> to every program.

Thanks for the look-thru, Moody. Yeah, that makes sense. To be honest, this
was me going through to understand exactly how ramfs worked and coming across some
puzzling behavior (like the ordering of -s & -m making a difference), and then
taking more time to figure out how it matched up with the man page and addressing
it so that I don't have to be concerned if I specify -s or -m first.

> A lot of these man page changes seem like a general rewrite, in particular the
> change of "option" to "flag" which feels off.

Yeah, it was really to align all to either "option" or "flag". For instance,
before the change some (-u, -D) were described as "option" while others
(-p, -i, -s) were described as "flag". Maybe I'm missing a nuance there.

> It just doesn't seem the benefits outweigh the cost of the churn to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Moody

Okay, thanks, Moody. At least I learned something by working through it.
I do appreciate the consideration.

> On 6/19/24 15:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> > Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
> > to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(

Thanks, Ori.