Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:28:21 -0600
From:      Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>
To:        Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu>, Yuri Pankov <yuripv@yuripv.dev>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r361940 - head/usr.bin/mkimg
Message-ID:  <1743df590639dc61b2b4216c81677851d2ee1312.camel@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200609141319.u7QUq%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
References:  <202006082111.058LBYfj075205@repo.freebsd.org> <20200608211940.qrR5l%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <bd5e499e-36a7-51cc-4130-c29a344b580d@yuripv.dev> <20200609141319.u7QUq%steffen@sdaoden.eu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 16:13 +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> I for one think Fl Fl is absolutely valid, where is the problem?
> If you go that route that Ingo (it is Ingo) brings into the world
> here (which counteracts many, many real-life manuals), then just
> reach into the macros and check how many characters the argument
> to Fl has, after all Fl is meant to document getopt-style things.
> If it is one, it is a short option, if it has more, it is a long
> one.  Short options have one dash, long have two, that is the
> convention.

It may be a convention, but it is not a standard that is universally
followed, as "man clang" or "man gcc" will show you.

-- Ian




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1743df590639dc61b2b4216c81677851d2ee1312.camel>