Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9145 comp.unix.wizards:7700
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <7656@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 11 Apr 88 05:45:10 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <143@gsg.UUCP> <7634@brl-smoke.ARPA> <583@mtxinu.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <583@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes:
>Actually, I think that you miss the point.  What shell do you use that
>doesn't expand -? when it matches a file name?  The point is that this
>use in getopt() abuses an existing construct.

Ok, so use -, instead of -? if you have problems with the latter.
The only reason I called it -? is that I KNOW that ? is not a possible
getopt() option, whereas with , you're just relying on the utility
designer being moderately sane.

I don't consider exploiting features of a design to necessarily be
abusing anything.  Otherwise almost all of UNIX would be one big abuse.