(Sorry for not quoting names. It�s cumbersome to do with less than one
person in Gmail.)
> With the above rules this should be: flo [-cfrtw arg] [what[,from][-to]]
I think that�s too little information.
> It also just makes the usage easier to read, in my opinion. Dropping a
> few characters just isn't worth any loss in clarity.
Valid point. Make things as simplistic as possible, but not simplisticr. :)
From the information that I have now, then I would think that this
should be fine:
usage: program [-a] [-b] [-c] [-f file] [-n number] blah
usage: flo [-a] [-c id] [-f from] [-r id] [-t to] [-w what] [what[,from][-to]]
I�d like to write a KISS option parser that accepts �program -c -a -f
some_file�, but not �program -ca -fsome_file�. I prefer to keep the
rules simplistic.
Is it okay to use three dots in the usage text? (See echo�s man page.)
I think it means that you can repeat what�s before the three dots.
How do you feel about sorting the options? Should it always be done?
Received on Wed Aug 18 2010 - 17:55:10 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 18 2010 - 18:00:04 CEST