@misty 😆 confirmed the same on monterey. that is absolutely a work of art

@misty "oops, you added another flag, you are now no longer verifying signatures" is a WILD failure mode

@misty "Think different"

@misty 💀 :blobcatknife:

@misty oh no :(

@misty WHAT

@misty ahhhhhhhhh

@misty cursed AF

@misty plot twist: when there’s a full moon, the -v flag prints the version number

@misty @salkin

@misty oh my god

@misty but can you do a verbose verify with -v -v?

@misty

Python did this better, in that -v is verbose and -V is version, except I can't never remember which is which and I get Mandela'd to a different timeline where they have switched everytime I check

@misty *

@misty uh wut?!

@misty .....whoa hold on just a minute HOW

@misty@digipres.club whar ​:neocat_flop:​ what tool is this lol

@misty @vxo is this fucking codesign I bet it is

@misty Same flag for two different things "in the classic UNIX style". 😬

@misty This problem was solved decades ago with lowercase 'v' and uppercase 'V'...

@misty what does the argparse code for this even look like

@misty "No more confusing flags: Our new command-line interface uses AI to decide what you want to do!"

@misty cursed

@misty This is not a typo in the man page? :blobfearful:

@misty GANDALF: -v stands alone.

EOMER: No not alone. VERBOOOOOOOSE!!!

@misty 😱

@misty “in the classic Unix style”

@misty I'm sure there's a story here, and it probably contains the words "backwards compatibility" and possibly also "oops".

@misty

what.

(though I must say that saying "in the classic UNIX style" in the same manpage as, uh, that is pretty close to peak chutzpah.)

@misty WHY TH EFUCK ISN'T VERIFY A COMMAND INSTEAD

edit: that was a typo but i feel like it fits so imma just roll with it

@misty .... what

@misty I must admit, now I'm just disappointed that there isn't a third `-v` / `--version`

@misty that's haunted AF

@misty Nah, you're holding it wrong.

/s

@misty -ѵ

@misty GNU standards are steaming mad.

@misty WHAT

@misty One of those is a backwards v.

@misty@digipres.club if it makes anybody here feel any better, using Remove-Item or "rm" in windows, you cant just specify "rm -rf", because -rf is unknown, and -f is BOTH -Filter and -Force

@misty is this a backdoor

@misty obviously, the short flag means verify verbosely, and you need to verify verbosely quietly if you don't want to verbosely verify

@misty A lot of careful co-design must have gone into that flag.

@misty Another #macrant . Excellent comments too

@misty

This is just cursed. Of all the obscurata that I have to teach, I'm glad this isn't one of them.

@misty

I never want to hear another computer person complain to me that lawyers deliberately make documents difficult to understand. I mean, this, this is... this is sufficiently serpentine that it can only be considered a work of the highest art.

@misty slightly off screen:
-v, --version

@misty fucking heinous

@misty it can tell what you really mean by how hard you smack the “enter” key

@misty That is crazy. Why not just go full "Apple way" and eliminate the short flags, at least for the verify? The 'softwareupdate' command shows the way.

@misty @swelljoe 🤨

@misty @zzt I knew about this, but had pushed it out of my brain, and now that you've reminded me I'm incredibly angry. Again. Just... No.

@misty
Doesn’t seem right that you can even use a shortened flag to request verbosity.

@misty does -v -v -v increment two times the verbosity of a signature verification ?

@misty@digipres.club wait: the first -v encountered will be assumed to be verify, which is after verbose in the man page and come the fuck onnn

@misty GCC has a similar issue but it is not as bad. `-v` by itself just prints the version info. but `-v` with the normal options means verbose (which also prints the version info).

@misty They’re not actually the same character. Neither of them is a Latin letter v, they are both from different Unicode planes that happen to look like a v.

What? It’s not like the real explanation makes more sense!