Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: A convention for -file
Message-ID: <6172@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Oct-86 19:56:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.6172
Posted: Thu Oct 30 19:56:52 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 31-Oct-86 03:24:34 EST
Organization: IEEE P1003 Portable Operating System for Computer Environments Committee
Lines: 44
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu

From: guy@sun.com (Guy Harris)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 23:20:53 PST

> >						        Since this one has
> >already been implemented by many commands, it is preferable.

> ...But I dislike it when it is paraded as THE reason for saying its
> preferable.  Is UNIX supposed to turn into an official fossil now?

I saw no great advantage offered by the proposed scheme.  It was more
"different" than it was "better".  I'll complete the thought, then: "Since
this one has already been implemented by many commands, since it requires less
reprogramming than changing all commands that accept flag arguments to
special-case arguments beginning with "--", and since it would be a novelty
to more users than the "'--' quotes a '-'" convention would be, it is
preferable."

> I say my suggestion is cleaner and more versatile, thus it is preferable.

I don't see how it is any "cleaner" than "--", although this depends on what
"cleaner" means.  It is slightly more versatile, in that it is not
context-dependent; however, this is not sufficient to make it preferable.
The cost of changing existing programs to use the "'--' quotes a '-'"
convention that is greater than the cost to changing them to use the
"getopt" convention.

> The required reprogramming would not be that complicated--just a minor
> nuisance.

No, it is not necessarily *complicated*, but that doesn't render it merely a
"minor nuisance".  It requires that all *non*-flag arguments be treated
specially.  Programs that accept flag arguments already treat them
specially.  Those that use "getopt" need not change at all.  Those that do
not can either be converted to use "getopt", or just be converted to
recognize a flag of the form "--" as an indication that no subsequent
arguments be treated as flag arguments.

> But if you wish appeals to history, ...

I *don't* want appeals to history; my comment was an appeal to existing
practice, and more specifically existing practice in the area of command
argument parsing.

Volume-Number: Volume 8, Number 8