> > My point is for consistency, it is unclear what the strategy is with -h > in GNU tools, perhaps only a partial idea to use -h for help in some tools. > > -h has ended up being used for other purposes than help in GNU tools. > The fact remains that -h is often used for help in GNU tools, but not in > all cases. So I think GNU tools should be consistant, be that in having > a -h option for help, or not using -h option for help in some GNU tools.
There are some tools where POSIX requires that -h stand for something that is not --help, so consistency argues that `--help' be the choice for all GNU tools to support. > > If the strategy is actually to only have --help, perhaps GNU should > define that somehwere, as obviously at present many GNU tools are > supporting the -h option for help. Then you haven't read section 4.6 of the GNU Coding Standards, that do just that: http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Command_002dLine-Interfaces.html Also, section 4.7 mentions common long options, and their short option equivalents where appropriate, and neither --help nor --version are given a short option listing in the GCS. -- Eric Blake _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
