Eric Blake <ebb9 <at> byu.net> writes: > Some of these programs recognize the @option{--help} and @option{--version} > -options only when one of them is the sole command line argument. > +options only when one of them is the sole command line argument. For > +these programs, abbreviations of the long options are not recognized.
In subsequent testing, I realized this is not entirely true. Should I work on a followup patch that makes this sentence true? For example, $ /bin/echo --help --version | head -n1 --help --version $ /bin/echo --help | head -n1 Usage: /bin/echo [OPTION]... [STRING]... $ /bin/echo --he | head -n1 Usage: /bin/echo [OPTION]... [STRING]... $ /bin/echo -n -e hi\\n | head -n1 hi Certainly some inconsistent behavior. echo takes multiple arguments, but only when they are the short options -[neE] (I guess it's okay that they don't have long-option variants?). But when --help or --version is present, echo acts like it takes exactly one argument. The usage text doesn't really portray that. The other thing that is awkward is that we are recognizing abbreviations; it seems like it would make more sense for "echo --he" to output "--he" rather than the help text. POSIX isn't much help here, either, as it only specifies that portable apps can't use -n (but says nothing about - e), and we are already violating the (lame) POSIX requirement that -e be on by default, thus giving no guidance on whether we are better off requiring the user to write "/bin/echo -ne" instead of "/bin/echo -n -e" when they want both options. Another case in point: $ /bin/[ --help me | head -n1 /bin/[: missing `]' $ /bin/[ --help | head -n1 Usage: test EXPRESSION $ /bin/[ --hel | head -n1 Usage: test EXPRESSION Should the last example also complain about missing `]', rather than printing help text? -- Eric Blake _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils