Am 08.03.2012 16:37, schrieb Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko: > On 08.03.2012 16:28, Lennart Sorensen wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 04:18:05PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' >> Serbinenko wrote: >>> We don't have to recreate whole GNU in GRUB either, we don't write >>> an OS but a bootloader. In particular having -xfoo for isn't >>> necessarry and moreover it will conflict with >>> search -su<UUID> >> So a 'short' option that looks like a 'long' option? >> >> Or is that -s and -u together? > It's -s and -u together and so -s has no argument. With Andreas > proposition "u" would be the argument Btw, that's the POSIX/GNU proposition. ;)
>> Options can get confusing at times? >> >>> which is already used in the wild. >>> The case of --long-option optional argument can be changed >>> especially taking into account migration from 1.98 but -xfoo is >>> probably out of the question. >> I don't see how -xfoo where foo is a parameter for -x can work if you >> support multiple short options being merged (which seems common in >> GNU programs). > You can if when encountering an option needing parameter you parse the > rest as parameter. But then again optional parameter are tricky. > Behaviour similar to other GNU is important but compatibility with > previous version of GRUB is more so, especially when it comes to the > rarely used features like -xfoo. That's the big misinterpretation done in the past: without being able to handle "-xfoo" you'll not be able to handle optional arguments in a proper way. So it's nothing about using a rarely used feature. The guys writing the POSIX/GNU recommendation did a great job and they knew exactly what they proposed and for what reasons. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
