home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: John Quarterman (moderator) <jsq@ut-sally.UUCP>
- Topic: still more on command line arguments (getopt)
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- From: seismo!nsc!idi!bene!luke!itkin (Steven List)
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 85 09:20:51 pdt
- To: ut-sally.ARPA!std-unix
- Subject: extraneous arguments
- Organization: Benetics Corp, Mt. View, CA
-
- >From: ihnp4!tektronix!uucp@ut-sally.ARPA
- >Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 85 18:43:47 PDT
- >Subject: What to do about extraneous arguments?
- >
- >Another aspect of command arguments is: after all the necessary arguments
- >have been processed, what if some are left?
- >
-
- I'm in agreement with tektronix!rdoty. I believe no program should produce
- unexpected results without some explanation. In the case of programs
- like cmp and diff, a diagnostic AND a nonzero exit status would seem to
- be appropriate. The diagnostic message would tend to satisfy checks on
- the size of the output being nonzero, and the status would satisfy
- status checks.
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 85 12:00:54 cdt
- From: neuro1!baylor!peter@rice.uucp (Peter da Silva)
- Subject: Re: Re: command line arguments
- References: <245@mcc-db.UUCP>
-
- > Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 00:52:46 pdt
- > From: nsc!turtlevax!ken@ihnp4.UUCP (Ken Turkowski)
- > Subject: Re: command line arguments
- >
- > Someone suggested that parsing arguments in shell scripts was difficult.
- > I include the following shell scripts, one for the Bourne shell and one
- > for the C-shell, which parse arguments of the form:
- > -v -O -o outfile file1 file2 file3
- > as well as
- > -vOooutfile file1 file2 file3
- >
-
- Sure, you can make shell scripts do almost anything. When I get a source with
- that sort of stuff in it I generally rip it out & put up with weirdness. Why?
- Well, our system is badly overloaded. Commands like that take 30 seconds to
- a minute to start up!
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 85 12:04:53 cdt
- From: neuro1!baylor!peter@rice.uucp (Peter da Silva)
- Subject: Re: Re: command line arguments
- References: <246@mcc-db.UUCP>
-
- > > I doubt the necessity and even the wisdom of seperating an argument from
- > > the option by whitespace.
- >
- > As I recall it, the AT&T standard does it this way on the grounds of
- > readability, not necessity. The "-t/dev/tty" example is an easy one
- > to pick out, but what about "-dfaglop"? Which of those letters are
- > options, and which are an option argument?
-
- OK, instead of forcing whitespace, how about requiring that there only be one
- flag if you are going to do this sort of stuff? I have had shell scripts
- totally broken by this requirement, and workarounds take up so much overhead
- (yes, some people have systems smaller than vaxen) that it's not worth the
- hassle.
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- This moderated newsgroup, mod.std.unix, and the corresponding ARPA Internet
- mailing list, is for discussions of UNIX standards; specifically
- the draft standard in progress by the IEEE P1003 Committee.
- Submissions to: ut-sally!std-unix or std-unix@ut-sally.ARPA
- Comments to: ut-sally!std-unix-request or std-unix-request@ut-sally.ARPA
- --
-
- John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!jsq
- ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, soon to be jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 1, Number 30
-
-