On 2010-08-03, David Champion <[email protected]> wrote:
> * On 03 Aug 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> > On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Right. There's no good convention for "end of list of arguments to an
>> > > option". There's only a good convention for "end of variable argument
>> > > list" ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
>> >
>> > And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
>> > A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
>> > almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
>> > but apparently we're now stuck with it.
>>
>> The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
>> arguments to a single option. Therefore mutt clearly uses something
>> other than the existing convention.
>
> Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last,
> a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates
> the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design
> consideration.
IMO, requiring that unrelated options be present in a certain order is also
a bad idea.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Is something VIOLENT
at going to happen to a
gmail.com GARBAGE CAN?
