Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9301 comp.unix.wizards:7771
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ncc!alberta!att-ih!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <2585@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 88 08:27:18 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <143@gsg.UUCP> <7680@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL
Lines: 22
Summary: of course -: works the same as -?.  What did you think I was saying?!?

In article <7680@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
# In article <2576@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
# >':' is special-cased in getopt.c.  Look at the code.
# 
# 	ls: illegal option -- :
# 	usage: ls -RadCxmnlogrtucpFbqisfL [files]
# 
# Works same as -? etc.

Of course it does!  What the dickens did you think I was saying?  Let me
spell it out.  Because of the special status of ':' in getopt.c, not even
the most yoyo, goony programmer can get getopt to recognize ':' as a valid
option flag (contrary to what the article I replied to claimed).  And, unlike
the '-?' folks were complaining about in this group, '-:' cannot POSSIBLY
trip you up by unexpected wildcard expansion under C, Bourne, or Korn shells.

Have I made myself clear[er]?  Hello?  Helloooooooooo?!?!?!?!?
-- 
|------------Dan Levy------------|  Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
|         an Engihacker @        |  	<most AT&T machines>}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy
|     AT&T Data Systems Group    |  Disclaimer?  Huh?  What disclaimer???
|--------Skokie, Illinois--------|