Jean-Noël AVILA <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes: > The choices here may be awkward; no problem to propose even more descriptive > names. > >> >> Similarly "the 'format:<format-string>' format" feels highly >> redundant, I expect the reader knows that <string> contains a format >> inside it as it's mentioned immediately before *and* after. >> > > The fact that it is a string doesn't tell you much about what you can do with > it. For me, this isn't a problem that the explanation is redundant. I agree that --format:<string> is quite poor, as type alone does not give readers any information on what it means and how it is supposed to look like. Calling it <format-string> does make quite a lot of sense. It is a bit less obvious how much value we get out of <bool-value>, though. In --opt=<arg> scheme of things, what comes after '=' are all <value>s, so <bool-value> does not clarify over <bool> like the way <format-string> clarifies over <string>.
