Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!fortune!rpw3
From: rpw3@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: standards, tools, history: options=? - (nf)
Message-ID: <2872@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Mar-84 07:02:36 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.2872
Posted: Wed Mar 28 07:02:36 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Mar-84 05:24:30 EST
Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 33

#R:circe:-4600:fortune:29300012:000:1263
fortune!rpw3    Mar 28 02:34:00 1984

Jim Knutson's example has a subtle but important difference from some of the
examples posted earlier. He showed file-valued options for each of his library
files:

	$ cc -output=foo -define=4bsd -define=localmachine -optimize \
		-input=foo.c -library=curses -library=otherlib

as compared with file-specific options which were "sticky though end-of-line
unless overridden". The latter would give

	$ cc -out=foo -def=4bsd,localmachine -opt foo.c -lib curses otherlib

(Since I recommend supporting abbreviations, I took the liberty of using them.)

While there are indeed places where file-valued options are useful (especially
places where you DON'T want "sticky" behavior like "-out=foo"), I would not
suggest using them as the normal option style.

File-specific (but standalone) "sticky" options fit traditional UNIX style
much better, for if you put them all up at the front of the command you
have the current command-global options. If you "spread them out" they then
apply to specific files or groups of files (as in the "number of copies to
print" example, given in another article).

Rob Warnock

UUCP:	{sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:	(415)595-8444
USPS:	Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065