On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No disrespect to Jörg, but FWIW I wholeheartedly concur. (I really don't > > like the -longoptionname nomenclature, as used by find(1)). > > This is really strange, so you like the hard to memorize options from cdrw?
The only cdrw options I've used are -i, -M, and -C (and -i is by far the most often one I use). > Well, it does not support many of them.... tell me how you would design a > program that supports nearly 100 options without using long options. > Tell me how you would design a program like star that supports more than 170 > options? I would rethink the design such that so many options weren't required. :-) Seriously though, if long option are unavoidable, fine, but I would at least stick to the POSIX guidelines* for doing so, modulo using -- to introduce a long option. In otherwords, I'd use "--longoption" rather than "-longoption". The latter could be confused with grouped arguments (i.e., the grouping of -l -o -n and -g). Having all the options available is great for expert users, but a good UI needs to cater to the "usual" case--out of the box, without having to tune an /etc/defaults file. > cdrw ignores most error conditions, this is differeent from not reporting > them. I agree that cdrw ignoring errors is a bug that needs fixing. Tha probably explains the toasters my Ultra 20 sometimes produces when burning disks. Apparently there's some issue with the DVD burner uses in these machines... * See the "Utility Syntax Guidelines" in Chapter 12 of the XBD section of the SUSv3. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
