At 01:53 PM 9/15/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:04:50PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 01:15 AM 9/15/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > >On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:37:40PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > > I vaguely recall when Chip put that in. He worked pretty hard to
> > > > adjust the command line/#! option processing. (Something about
> > > > unsafe operations already being done before the script is read.)
> > >
> > >The crux of my proposal/request is that when perl6 innards are
> > >designed, -T processing is handled the same way -p and -i are.
> > >That is, option processing should start out cleaner than what
> > >is in 5.7.0 or what was in 5.004 (at least, wrt -T).
> >
> > Maybe we should come up with a precedence list for switches. You'd want -T
> > in the #! line processed before the -M on the command-line in this case,
> > for example.
>
>DING! You just won the "Help Improve RFC 227" contest. Mind if I steal
>that thought for v2?
Go right ahead. In fact, care to handle the "Let's abstract out the
command-line switch system" RFC? (Yes, I'd like to do -T on a Unix box,
/TAINT on VMS, \TAINT on WinXX, and the TAINT resource on MacOS)
>And where do things like -d and -c fall into the precedence list? I
>think that -c should be pretty high, but fall after -M, but -d should
>be pretty low, possibly lowest of all.
I'd put -d last, -D first, and -c in there between the load-time things
(-M, -T, -U, etc...) and the runtime things (-n, -p)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
