On 5/27/06, H.Merijn Brand <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:42:25 +0100, David Cantrell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:04:53PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 May 2006 03:35:44 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Here, let me plant a bomb on our shared computer:
> > > touch /tmp/-r
> > > It may take a long time to go off, but if it does, I guess that's your
> > > fault too?
> > No it's yours. *YOU* planted the bomb.
> > You cannot blame someone using a train for a bomb a terrorist planted.
>
> It's not about blame. It's about who suffers. In this case *you*
> suffer from *his* actions because you use a character which has special
> meaning to the shell, and you don't want that.
I don't suffer, because I have protected myself (as much as possible) against
that. At the end, no-one really cares about the victim, and all blame the
attacker.
Anyway, My plea was not about how shells interpret -?, but that programs
should support it as alias for --help. -\? is still a lot less characters
than --help, and IMHO still evenly clear.
OK, I've learned a lot from all the opinions raised in this hate, and I will
continue to support *both* --help and -? for all my scripts. There is no
harm nor security issue from the script/program side of that.
I still have no intention to have support for -h. To *me* it is an illogical
choice and I am likely to choose that letter for something else.
I will probably review my scripts to
* send a requested help to STDOUT, and exit with 0
* send error help to STDERR, and exit with non-null
Doesnt Pod::Usage make this easy?
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
