home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: <jsq@ut-sally.UUCP> John Quarterman (moderator)
-
- Topic: getopt (command line arguments) continued
-
- This looks like it is going to be a backburner discussion for some time.
-
- It has been noted in mail that the other getopt than the one I posted
- may be superior, and that it would be good to post whichever is the best
- to mod.sources or net.sources again, as those get archived on many hosts.
- Negotiations are in progress.
-
- Note the address for submissions to mod.std.unix is ihnp4!ut-sally!std-unix.
- Mark Horton is very efficient, but he's got his own newsgroups to moderate....
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 16:51:43 edt
- From: wfmans@ihuxb.uucp
- Subject: Re: command line arguments
- To: mark@cbosgd.ATT.UUCP
- References: <2220@ut-sally.UUCP>
-
- > > some commands take arguments as
- > >
- > > command -abcdefg filename
- > >
- > > and some as
- > >
- > > command -a -b -c -d -e -f -g filename
- > >
- > > It would be great if this was standardised.
- >
-
- The thing that burns me about some commands (and these are usually
- experimental tools, mind you, real UNIX commands seem to work ok)
- is that while most will accept
- command -flag and command - flag
- some will only accept one or the other.
- I suppose that its easier to process the latter with a shell script
- if you don't use getopt, but it sure is a pain.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 12:58:16 cdt
- From: neuro1!baylor!peter@rice.uucp (Peter da Silva)
- Subject: Re: Re: command line arguments
- Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
- To: neuro1!mark@cbosgd.ARPA
- References: <2210@ut-sally.UUCP> <2226@ut-sally.UUCP>
-
- :-) Look! No quotes!
-
- I doubt the necessity and even the wisdom of seperating an argument from
- the option by whitespace. I also dislike the blackballing of multicharacter
- options.
-
- Since no arguments are allowed to be optional there's no point in
- distinguishing between '-t/dev/tty4' and '-t /dev/tty4'. Since 't'
- requires an argument the parsing is unambiguous.
-
- It makes it harder to write transparent shell scripts. Atomic options make
- it much easier to pass stuff onto other programs. Parsing options in shell
- scripts is pretty much a lossage anyway, so why make things harder?
-
- As for multicharater options: do you intend to kill "tail -30"? Since
- changing the number of lines is the most common case what's the problem?
- At any rate you should allow a simple '-nnn' for a high-usage.
-
- [ Since tar is the standard for data interchange (actually, only the
- format of the tar data, not the tar program, is currently in the draft
- standard), I suspect there will always be anomalies. The advantage
- of getopt is not that it's perfect, just that it's close enough and
- widespread enough that it has some chance of being adopted everywhere.
- -mod ]
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- The moderated newsgroup mod.std.unix is for discussions of UNIX standards,
- in particular of the draft standard in progress by the IEEE P1003
- "UNIX Standards" Committee.
-
- Submissions to the newsgroup to: ut-sally!std-unix
- Comments about the newsgroup to: ut-sally!std-unix-request
- Permission to post to the newsgroup is assumed for mail to the former address,
- but not for mail to the latter address, nor for mail to my personal addresses.
- --
-
- John Quarterman, jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 1, Number 11
-
-