From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Mahoney Subject: Re: Getopt improvements Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:26:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3E5F6374.9040003@suse.com> References: <3E5D26A2.7010804@suse.com> <20030227092551.C28643@namesys.com> <3E5E312C.50406@suse.com> <3E5E730C.7030804@namesys.com> <3E5E84B2.90708@suse.com> <3E5E92BA.4090307@namesys.com> <20030228100147.A878@namesys.com> <3E5F504A.6010902@namesys.com> <20030228154157.A10830@namesys.com> <3E5F5B81.1040602@namesys.com> <20030228161535.C10830@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030228161535.C10830@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Oleg Drokin Cc: Hans Reiser , Reiserfs List 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