Re: Re: required options

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 17:37 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 09:27 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> target=TARGET  ?

It has been observed that some people love to use "=" as file name
prefix...

We do not need one more option syntax. I understand that the "named
argument" argument can make _some_ sense, even though it can easily
leads to excessively complicated usage messages. But in any case it can
be covered with the GNU option syntax.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa



-------------------------------------------------------
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