Re: Re: required options

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 18:09 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 09:55 +0200, David Allouche wrote:
> > 
> > It has been observed that some people love to use "=" as file name
> > prefix...
> 
> target==foo

Come on, be serious. We do not need one more option syntax.

> > 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.
> 
> Thats the point: these ARE NOT OPTIONS. OPTIONS ARE OPTIONAL.

Yes, they are optional:

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 09:27 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> 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.

Named arguments in that context are options that take the place of a
positional argument. That's exactly the way the --target-directory
option to ls behaves, and I think I made that clear in my previous
message.

-- 
                                                            -- 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