Re: Getopt improvements

[Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>]

Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> 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
> 

	Sorry guys, that'll teach me to skip breakfast. I accidentally replied 
to Oleg as "Reply", rather than "Reply All", and grabbed the wrong 
message to use for "Reply All" for this list.

	-Jeff


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