[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Priority of --help
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: Priority of --help |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:50:04 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 |
On 10/21/2015 07:17 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 07:04 AM, Leslie S Satenstein wrote:
>> Hi Eric
>> I like your findings. Can you see any wrong reason why the parser should
>> not first scan for -- arguments?
>
> That's what the parser already does. The question is whether the scan
> should be one-pass or two-pass.
>
>> I would like to see something like " ls -l * --help " tell me
>> what "ls -l" is about? Regards
>
> No, be careful. I specifically note that I _like_ the behavior of
> options eating their arguments. 'ls -l * --help' will NOT always output
> help, if the last file in the expansion of '*' resembles an option that
> requires an argument. I'm only requesting whether 'ls -l * --help
> --help' is a guaranteed way to get help.
Actually, that's not true either; if '*' expands to include a literal
file '--', then nothing after that point will be interpreted as an option.
But either case (a file looking like option name that requires an
argument, or a file looking like '--') is rare, so in general, yes,
putting --help after * usually works.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature