[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: regarding head/tail syntax
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: regarding head/tail syntax |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:46:19 +0200 |
[I removed address@hidden from the Cc: list, since
that list bounces mail from non-members]
address@hidden (Paul Jarc) wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>> address@hidden (Paul Jarc) wrote:
>>> Given the significant number of complaints about this behavior, I
>>> think it would make sense to reject -1, etc., only if $POSIXLY_CORRECT
>>> is set.
> ...
>> These changes are in a different class, so I think it's best to
>> associate them with a different variable: $_POSIX2_VERSION.
>
> I don't think the spelling of the variable matters, but I think the
> default behavior when the variable is not set should be to accept the
> traditional options.
I have chosen the default to make these tools POSIX compliant,
at least when it comes to things other than --help and --version.
Besides, I think the current behavior is for the better -- at least
in the long run -- since they make the option syntax and semantics
more consistent across all tools, and as a result, the behavior is
more predictable for new users.
Re: regarding head/tail syntax, Paul Eggert, 2003/09/22