On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 10:56:25AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Neal D. Becker wrote:
It's a small point, but here's my opinion. ?You say something like: "If option requires a value and ?following -<number> doesn't match an option, then parse it as an argument".
I would suggest "If option requires a value then parse *any* following string, including -<number> as a value, unconditionally".
So the different would be that
-a -b
where both "a" and "b" are allowed option and "-a" requires a value, will be reported as invalid value of option "-a" not as missing value on the command line? Why do you think that's better?
It's certainly what I'd expect, and what getopt() does IIRC. Try "grep -B -a foo bar" and you get an error due to "-a" not being a number (at least with GNU grep) jon