Norm wrote: > David Levine <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> I wonder if, for 1.7, that simple syntax and semantics could be guaranteed? > >> That way, it would be possible for *proc commands to be always uptodate. > > > >I'm not sure how. For example, if a new switch is added, its mere > >existence wouldn't be enough to let a *proc writer know whether or > >how to use it. > > But for most *procs and most proc writers won't it usually be the case > that he doesn't want to use it per se, but just to know that it might > be there and how many arguments it takes so that he can ignore it?
I'm still now sure how "it would be possible for *proc commands to be always uptodate." My only suggestion would be to parse the -help output as you'd like, even though there's no guarantee that it won't change some day. You can detect that, too. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
