Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!rbj@icst-cmr.arpa
From: rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: command line options
Message-ID: <12905@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 11 Apr 88 02:37:20 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 32


   From: Barry Shein <bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU>

   Or maybe, just maybe, we agree that using -x where 'x' is a shell
   meta-character is not a good idea for a standard, universal flag to
   appear in every Unix command as the help/usage flag.

Perhaps Doug's message arrived too late. What you say is true, and
Doug's reliance on the fact that `-?' doesn't get expanded because
he (and most people with any sense) doesn't keep files around with
names that look like options (altho note the usefulness of the file
name `-i') *is* a bit brash and bold. He could have as well have said
use `-/' or `-.' because even worse than naming files bogusly (which
is private) is misnaming options (which are public). Remember that
he originally responded to the question of `how do I get a program
to print a usage message in an almost universal manner'?

   What's wrong with using "-help" as a special case? Perhaps even with
   an option to pass it back and let the calling program handle the help,
   actually that could be handled by just having getopt() define a
   function usage() and letting the user define his/her own to override.

Gag, choke. Too verbose. Options are one character.

	   -Barry Shein, Boston University

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell	<rbj@icst-cmr.arpa>
	National Bureau of Standards
	Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688
Our father who art in heaven..  I sincerely pray that SOMEBODY
 at this table will PAY for my SHREDDED WHAT and ENGLISH MUFFIN..
 and also leave a GENEROUS TIP...