Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:42:25 +0200 From: Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@schweikhardt.net> To: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: repeated options to mean different thing Message-ID: <20020723204225.A38605@schweikhardt.net> In-Reply-To: <20020723194802.C50574@numeri.campus.luth.se> References: <20020723194802.C50574@numeri.campus.luth.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Johan, On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:48:02PM +0200, Johan Karlsson wrote: # Hi # # In PR 40709 I suggested to use to use -v to mean # be verbose (current behaivour) and repeated -v # (e.g chmod -v -v 777 file, or chmod -vv 777 file) # to mean be very verbose. # # tcpdump uses a variant of this where -v mean be verbose # and -vv mean be even more verbose. # # Sheldon told me to ask here if this goes against POSIX # or some other standard. # # So, is the use of repeated options prohibited by POSIX? You can find the gory details in the POSIX Utility Syntax Guidelines, http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap12.html#tag_12_02 # Or is this a stupid idea from some other standards point of # view? I'd say multiple -v becomes clumsy once you have more than three levels of verbosity. Why not use -v level or even -v bitmask in cases where you don't have to be backwards compatible (i.e. if a utility has had -v as a single letter option it's a bad idea to turn it into an option taking a level arg. Breaks older scripts.) Regards, Jens -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020723204225.A38605>