Re: cut enhancement: -C as short option for --complement

[Mark Krenz]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 09:15:12PM GMT, Eric Blake [address@hidden] said the 
following:
> 
> The _easiest_ way to justify a short option letter is by reference to
> another implementation that has the same semantics, and use that letter.
>  Another road to this would be proposing the feature for inclusion into
> POSIX, and picking a letter as part of your proposal (since POSIX will
> only standardize on short names, not --complement); if the feature is
> deemed useful enough to standardize, you've managed to pick a short letter.
> 
> In other words, it's not the choice of -C that we're worried about, it's
> the fact that you're even proposing a short option in the first place
> without providing compelling evidence that it is widely used or picked
> up by other implementations.

 Ok, thanks for explaining this. I think I understand now. You're
worried that by choosing an option not in POSIX that it would be in
conflict with any future choice made in POSIX. That makes sense.

 Do you have any insight on submitting changes to the POSIX standards?

-- 
Mark Krenz
address@hidden
 
Sent from Mutt using Linux