On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 17:36 +0100, Lorenzo Bettini wrote: > Dave Swegen wrote: > > OK, the following line generates code that seems to incorrectly mark the > > option as required (which is certainly not my intention): > > > > option "sqn" - "sqn" argoptional multiple string > > > > well if you don't want an option to be required you have to specify "no" > (by default an option is considered as required). "argoptional", > instead, means that the argument of that option is optional.
Ah! Suddenly I see the light :) > > I must confess that "no" is quite confusing, and infact I'll add the > keyword "optional" which is much more explicative (and "required" for > "yes") :-) Yes, that would be much more intuitive Dave -- David Swegen Consultant GPS, Red Hat Europe m: +44 7734 909630 w: people.redhat.com/dswegen ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Help-gengetopt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gengetopt
