On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 16:29 +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Hello. > > Mateusz Piotrowski wrote in > <995726df-cb28-c294-09ca-6cca302b2...@freebsd.org>: > |On 6/11/20 12:06 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > |> Yuri Pankov wrote in > |> <a5e45631-bf32-56bc-4c03-0d0ad1d10...@yuripv.dev>: > |>|Mateusz Piotrowski wrote: > |>|> Author: 0mp (doc,ports committer) > |>|> Date: Wed Jun 10 19:23:58 2020 > |>|> New Revision: 362017 > |>|> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/362017 > |>|> > |>|> Log: > |>|> Read commands from stdin when -f - is passed to sed(1) > |> .. > |>|Am I reading it wrong, or is it the same test case added 3 times? > |> > |> It also used "Fl f Cm -" instead of "Fl f Ar -". Just saying.. > > |Which is correct. "-" is not a variable here. It is a fixed string hence > |the use of Cm. > > I would rather say no, .Ar is an argument (to the ".Fl"ag f), > whereas .Cm is a command modifier: > > Command Modifiers > The command modifier is identical to the '.Fl' (flag) command with the > exception that the '.Cm' macro does not assert a dash in front of every > argument. Traditionally flags are marked by the preceding dash, however, > some commands or subsets of commands do not use them. Command modifiers > may also be specified in conjunction with interactive commands such as > editor commands. >
Yeah, but... The '.Fl' macro without any arguments results in a dash representing stdin/stdout. Note that giving '.Fl' a single dash will result in two dashes. The '.Fl' macro is parsed and is callable. And that seems to argue that "Fl f Fl" is correct. -- Ian _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
