Re: [Caml-list] [community poll for PR#5312] Do some OCaml Windows users still use the @responsefile feature?

[Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>]

> It looks to me like you could simply disable the feature for arguments
> following -w.

If I understand the situation correctly, this approach is not
currently an option, as the @responsefile expansion is done by the
OCaml runtime -- affects all programs, before they process their
arguments -- while the "-w" exception would only make sense for the
compiler toolchains; there is no reason why an user program (that
currently can use the @responsefile feature) would suddenly stop
expanding @-files after a "-w", an option which may have completely
different semantics in this program command-line interface.

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jeff Schultz <jws@csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> According to our Windows spies, the command-line restrictions are
>> nowadays very reasonable: 8K for cmd.com, and 32K internally. Maybe
>> the @responsefile feature has outlived its use, and this bug could be
>> fixed by simply removing the @-files expansion phase of the runtime.
>
> 8K is not much.
>
>> This change would however affect all user programs, so it should not
>> be taken lightly; it could break your programs.
>
>> What do OCaml Windows user think? Do you still rely on @reponsefile?
>> Please complain if you do -- or your users do -- and don't hesitate to
>> pass the question to off-list OCaml Windows users.
>
> I stopped using OCaml for new development *because* of the pain it
> caused on MSWIN, so my opinion is probably not very valuable.
>
> It looks to me like you could simply disable the feature for arguments
> following -w.  However, if you want to remove the feature, I suggest
> that you do so in three stages:
>
>    1.  Disable the @responsefile feature and provide a command line
>        flag to reenable it.  Warn if this conflicts with the -w @a
>        style of options.
>    2.  In a later release, remove the code, but make the flag print
>        an appropriate diagnostic.
>    3.  In an even later release, remove the flag completely.
>
> The time between the first two steps should be determined by the
> response to the first step.
>
> This is the standard evolution: make people notice that you are taking
> a feature away, but let them keep using it, followed by taking it
> away, but telling them it's gone, followed by pretending it never
> existed.
>
> It's good that you're adding the desirable preliminary of asking
> first.
>
>
>    Jeff Schultz
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>