[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why aren't gnu utils normalized?

From: Bob Fry
Subject: Re: why aren't gnu utils normalized?
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:03:02 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.21 (windows-nt)

>>>>> "MB" == Miles Bader <> writes:

    MB> One part of the GNU coding standards is a list of existing
    MB> command-line options; if you write a new program or add a new
    MB> option, it's a good idea to try and find an existing option
    MB> which fits, and use that.

Ha!  I never looked at it; but it includes this:

"One of the advantages of long-named options is that they can be
consistent from program to program.  For example, users should be able
to expect the "verbose" option of any GNU program which has one, to be
spelled precisely `--verbose'."

Though the wording and the example don't fully explain things.
"*They* can be consistent..."  What is *they*? Merely the spelling, or
also the functionality?

So *maybe* one of the uses of the long-named options is what I am just hasn't been implemented yet.
If you ever reach total enlightenment while drinking beer, I bet
you could shoot beer out of your nose.
 - Jack Handey

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]