Honestly, I don't care about this all that much. I'll let you and
David debate this to your liking. If no consensus develops in the
next few days, I'll just commit what I have now. (Obviously, if
consensus does develop I'll go along with it.)
Thanks,
Dima Dorfman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dima Dorfman writes:
> >But this isn't terminating the end of a series of "options"; it's
> >terminating a series of assignments, and since env(1) detemines
> >whether an argument is an assignment or not by whether it has a '=' in
> >it, it makes sense to use '==' as David suggests.
>
> No. The reason for "--" is that it's two of the *START* of an option.
> env assignments don't *start* with =.
>
> The most consistent thing here is "-- to separate parts of a command line".
>
> >It's different from
> >the others because it signifies the end of a different kind of
> >"series".
>
> Sure, but the user doesn't necessarily care. Certainly, no one has ever
> tried to use "==" to end any sequence of arguments anywhere; people use --
> to end subsequences of arguments all the time.
>
> -s
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
