On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 02:48:28PM +0100, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
What should the behavior of executables be in case they are compiled
> with the runtime options parser disabled (e.g.,
> -disable-runtime-options, as per Felix' previous patch)?
Assuming we go with the decision to process
On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 08:43:52 +0100 Peter Bex wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:40:18AM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
>> > Of course. In fact, I think it would make more sense to simply tell the
>> > runtime options parser to stop after the first non-"-:"-prefixed
>> > argument.
Making it compatible might be nice, but involves a change in how these
options are parsed - they're comma separated. I wouldn't be opposed to
this change, but it deviates further from what we have making backwards
compatibility more of an issue. This might not be a problem since these
options
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:40:18AM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
> > Of course. In fact, I think it would make more sense to simply tell the
> > runtime options parser to stop after the first non-"-:"-prefixed
> > argument. That makes runtime argument stuffing harder and allows it
>
> Of course. In fact, I think it would make more sense to simply tell the
> runtime options parser to stop after the first non-"-:"-prefixed
> argument. That makes runtime argument stuffing harder and allows it
> to play nice with _any_ option parser, and makes the "--" behaviour
> automatically
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:39:22AM +0200, Lassi Kortela wrote:
> Is there any reason -: runtime options need to be recognized beyond the
> first argument? Gambit also uses the -: syntax, and it does not.
Making it compatible might be nice, but involves a change in how these
options are parsed -
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 09:35:53PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
> > In other words, "./my-program -:a100 -- foo" is seen as '("--" "foo")
> > when you ask for (command-line-arguments), while the intention probably
> > was '("foo").
>
> Actually not. Currently "--" is not specially
Is there any reason -: runtime options need to be recognized beyond the
first argument? Gambit also uses the -: syntax, and it does not.
