On 11/4/19 12:50 PM, enh wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 6:10 AM Andrew Ilijic <[email protected]> wrote: > > i'm generally pro long-options because i think they're easier to > remember. rob is generally anti; in particular he really doesn't like > cases where there's a long option without any corresponding short > option. (though i think that's a good idea for rarely-used options > because there are only 2*26 short options -- and far fewer _good_ ones > -- and again, rarely used options are the ones where the more > memorable long names are more helpful.)
Both because unix history and because I implemented the lib/args.c infrastructure so short options could be [grouped] and it drags the longopts in via correspondence with short options. It supports "bare longopts" but doesn't have all same the tools for them, because I dunno what that syntax would look like in the NEWTOY() optstr. > checking my AOSP notes, --no-symlinks and --relative-to are both used, > but i don't currently know of any other long options AOSP needs. Sounds good. Keep in mind we can always add more later, but you can't easily _remove_ them without breaking compatibility with what you had before. Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
