Re: required options

* Robert Collins (2004-09-09 09:07 +0200)
> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 09:01 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>> The manual states that users often want "required (mandatory) options"
>> which is contradictory in itself. The manual suggests using positional
>> arguments instead.
>> 
>> I think this is some kind of misunderstanding. Positional arguments
>> are often not usable because only the position makes the argument the
>> source or the destination for example. It's not always as simple and
>> obvious as with "cp" (for instance I always get it wrong with "ln -s
>> TARGET LINK_NAME").
> 
> Sure they are: here's a revamped ln:
> 
> ln -s target TARGET linkname LINK_NAME
> 
> where that is four arguments, two fixed value strings, two the user
> chooses.... 

Yes, four arguments instead of two. Obviously an ugly, nonsensical
"hack".
 
> if you want to do that, that is. I agree with the Tao though, if
> something is mandatory, it is not an 'option'.

I agree with the Tao, too. But the whole point of my posting was that
these people in fact don't want mandatory options but named arguments.

Thorsten



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click