Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9119 comp.unix.wizards:7684
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <21426@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 10 Apr 88 17:49:03 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <143@gsg.UUCP> <7634@brl-smoke.ARPA> <21370@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <7639@brl-smoke.ARPA> <21419@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <7648@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA's message of 10 Apr 88 08:49:36 GMT



Doug Gwyn writes
>In article <21419@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>>What's wrong with using "-help" as a special case?
>
>I explained how you could exploit a feature that is ALREADY PRESENT
>and you keep missing the point.  -help does not currently work.

I don't miss the point, I don't see the difficulty in fixing something
that's broken:

	if(strcmp(flag,"-help") == 0)
		return(usage()); /*usage() can be redefined by the programmer*/

I don't find the fact that -? (or -\? or '-?') happens to work
wonderfully compelling, I guess you do, so we disagree.

Ok, let me put it this way, if -? happens to work, fine, I wouldn't
suggest undoing it (I assume -* and -[ and -] etc work also) but if
one line of code is touched to codify that idea it ought to be
something like I suggest and shell metacharacters should be avoided in
getting help. It wouldn't undo the original idea, just make it useful.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University