Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9091 comp.unix.wizards:7671
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!yale!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: <21420@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 10 Apr 88 01:47:54 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7630@brl-smoke.ARPA> <8041@elsie.UUCP> <7640@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA's message of 9 Apr 88 23:08:14 GMT



From Doug Gwyn
>= is the name of a useful file on 8th Edition UNIX, so the same argument
>could be made against its use for help, as well as the additional
>observation that -? functions as a help request as a serendipitious
>side-effect of the design of getopt(), so that it already is supported
>and neither applications nor getopt() need to be changed to use it.

Oh, now there you got us. Let's not concern ourselves with csh because
that's merely the shell of choice among any vendors actually selling
Unix. Noooo...let's make sure the thing doesn't conflict with nits on
8th Edition Unix. Now there's a universal concern, there must be
almost a dozen computers running 8th Edition!

My point is not to disparage 8th Edition, but how in the hell can you
say it doesn't matter what conflicts with csh but 8th Edition must get
its due?

And besides, ? is a meta-character in Bourne, Ksh and Csh last I
checked.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University