Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:19:39 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk> Cc: Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing documented bug in env(1) Message-ID: <20010603151939.B30607@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200106021618.f52GIjd35540@dotar-sojat.thuvia.org>; from mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 05:18:45PM %2B0100 References: <200106021618.f52GIjd35540@dotar-sojat.thuvia.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark you've given the justification and logic behind `==' much, much better than I did. Thanks! :-) -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) P.S. typically I don't quote a whole message like this, but I think it is important that at least read this one and honestly consider it. On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Mark Valentine wrote: > > people use -- > > to end subsequences of arguments all the time. > > No, they use ``--'' to indicate to getopt(3) the end of the _options_ and > the _start_ of the arguments. > > Since env(1) uses getopt(3), ``--'' already has meaning to env(1); it allows > environment variables and commands which start with ``-'' (the former is > obviously invalid). > > $ env -i -- -t args > > currently allows execution of command ``-t''. > > However, what Dima proposes doesn't seem to be harmful, just slightly > confusing, and less surprising than inventing a new delimieter such as > ``==''. > > $ env -i -- foo=bar -- 4=4 args > > has two distinct uses of `--'' as per Dima's proposal, the first tells > getopt(3) to stop processing options, and the second tells the argument > processing code to stop looking for variable assignments (i.e. ``4=4'' > is a command). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010603151939.B30607>