Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So -ol (that's an el) would mean line-buffered stdout? >> That has to be equivalent to -o -l, and unless you consider >> ordering and multiple -l options (e.g., "-i -l -o -l" is ugly), >> then it doesn't let you line-buffer more than one of the three streams. > > It would be "+i::o::e::" in getopt parlance; no argument = no buffering, > argument is "l" = line buffering, argument is numberic = given-size buffer.
Hi Paulo, When designing new interfaces/tools, it's best to avoid that type of optional argument. This is partly a user interface consistency issue (users are used to -il being equivalent to -i -l), and partly that it's nonstandard: using "::" like that is a GNU getopt extension. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
