Closed aaronccasanova closed 2 years ago
I think the proposed naming is better, but probably not better enough to make the effort at this stage. š«
Why not āconfigā?
"config" is not what I would generally call the collection of CLI arguments, personally.
We use "config" as the name of the parameter:
const parseArgs = (config = { __proto__: null })
True, Iād call them options, but theyāre both options :-) and āoptionsConfigā is pretty wordy.
Yes, "optionsConfig" is definitely wordy! That's honestly my issue with it as well.
I think the proposed naming is better, but probably not better enough to make the effort at this stage.
Totally agree, this isn't worth the effort at this stage.
TBH I'm very happy with the current API and just wanted to quickly check if folks shared that opinion and/or had any alternative suggestions. Thanks for entertaining the idea all! š
I'm quite eager to see the
parseArgs
PR in Node cross the finish line, but since we missed the initial release should we consider one last time renaming thevalues
result?IMO, This property made sense when the associated
parseArgs
configuration API waswithValue
. However now we have switched to aconfig.options
objects and combined the boolean options from the now legacyflags
property.If I think about it semantically, the
parseArgs
inputs are really anoptionsConfig
and the outputs areoptions
.Proposing
Before:
After:
I imagine this update would be pretty frictionless with a simple find and replace. That being said, I absolutely don't want to hold things up and would be fine closing this issue here and now.