Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9329 comp.unix.wizards:7787
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!vsi!sullivan
From: sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <535@vsi.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 88 17:36:20 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1988Apr13.164952.646@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA
Lines: 15

In article <1988Apr13.164952.646@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > But using -? only _has_ to say that -? is a bad option.  You are relying
>
> How do you propose to get around this?  There is no way to force the
> programmer to supply useful error messages.

I never said there was a way around it.  I just wanted to interject into
this discussion that whatever one uses to get a usage message, be it -?,
-:, -@, or -HELP isn't necessarily going to get a useful error message
with every program.  That's all.

-- 
Michael Sullivan		{uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
				sullivan@vsi.com
HE V MTL