[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h]
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h] |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:24:21 +0000 |
>
> My point is for consistency, it is unclear what the strategy is with -h
> in GNU tools, perhaps only a partial idea to use -h for help in some tools.
>
> -h has ended up being used for other purposes than help in GNU tools.
> The fact remains that -h is often used for help in GNU tools, but not in
> all cases. So I think GNU tools should be consistant, be that in having
> a -h option for help, or not using -h option for help in some GNU tools.
There are some tools where POSIX requires that -h stand for something
that is not --help, so consistency argues that `--help' be the choice for
all GNU tools to support.
>
> If the strategy is actually to only have --help, perhaps GNU should
> define that somehwere, as obviously at present many GNU tools are
> supporting the -h option for help.
Then you haven't read section 4.6 of the GNU Coding Standards, that
do just that:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Command_002dLine-Interfaces.html
Also, section 4.7 mentions common long options, and their short
option equivalents where appropriate, and neither --help nor
--version are given a short option listing in the GCS.
--
Eric Blake
- [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], J. Grant, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], J. Grant, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], J. Grant, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], J. Grant, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/17
- Re: [Fwd: cat: invalid option -- h], Andreas Schwab, 2005/09/17