Re: PATCH: assume -s

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron VanDevender <address@hidden> writes:

    Aaron> Ok, I've reworked it so that it doesn't duplicate code. I've
    Aaron> also changed the semantics *slightly*. In the old case, anything
    Aaron> that wasn't a recognized switch was treated as a SCRIPT. This
    Aaron> was, only things that don't begin with a '-' will be assumed as
    Aaron> a script. That way people won't rely on, for example, -a *not*
    Aaron> being a switch, invoking scheme -a, with -a being a script, and
    Aaron> then one day someone implementing the -a switch and breaking the
    Aaron> previous invocation. Its a long shot, (why would you ever want
    Aaron> to name a script -a?) better to be safe. The new patch also
    Aaron> updates the usage message.

Thanks.  This was discussed in October 2002 on the list, and there
seemed a pretty clear consensus in favour, so I'll apply this soon.

(One slight objection at that time was the risk of someone coding
"guile %s", and then someone else passing "-x" as the %s, and then
getting unexpected results; but this is addressed by your semantics as
described above.)

        Neil