Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:54:47AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I would prefer if the -q and -n descriptions were in a table. I dislike > > the ancient style of describing such things inline (harder to spot). > > And it really falls down when there are multiple ones. How do you > > feel about that jmc? > > Agreed, I changed it a bit to improve readability. > > > Also, do -qn and -nq work? How about -nnn. Not saying those make a > > lot of sense, but once getopt syntax is borrowed it should probably be > > honoured. > > I redid this piece a little bit, and opted to go a bit stricter to leave > as much freedom as possible for future extensions. > > OK: > -n command > -n -q command > -q -n command > -q command > command > > Not OK: > -nn command > -qn command > -q -q command > -n -n -q command > > My thinking is by being strict now, we make it possible to add arguments > to options in the future. If we allow "-nn" or "-nq" now, we won't be > able to allow "[email protected]" in the future. Or maybe we'll want > "-v" to mean something different than "-vv". I don't know, so prefer to > be less forgiving.
Well, if it was actual getopt parsing it would work in either case due to ":" handling. Shrug.
