Re: Getopt improvements

[Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>]

Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:52:17PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>Incompatible options should fail as they represent error.  Feel free to 
>>>>argue with that.
>>>
>>>Hm, I am not going to argue. But we never had this kind of logic.
>>>Usually the latest-specified option was taking effect.
>>
>>Conflicts in the same command line should fail, latest command line 
>>should override.  Yes?
> 
> 
> Ok, I will think on how to implement that.
> 
> Bye,
>     Oleg

No, just the opposite. I'm suggesting that if smalltail and largetail 
were _not_ mutually exclusive they should be first level options. Since 
they _are_ mutually exclusive, then they are well suited for a second 
level option.

	I think that the appearance of assignment involved in specifying a 
second level option makes it intuitive to believe that only the most 
recently used option is the active one.

	-Jeff

-- 
jeffm@suse.com
jeffm@csh.rit.edu