On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 00:09, Paul Jarc wrote: > Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---------------- begin quote --------------- > > XBD ERN 16 Utilities that have extensions violating the Utility Syntax > > Guidelines Accept as marked. > > > > It was agreed that an interpretation be made , that the standard > > is clear and no change is required. The standard permits > > implementations to have extensions that violate the Utility > > Syntax Guidelines so long as when the utility is used in > > line with the forms defined by the standard that it follows > > the Utility Syntax Guidelines. Thus head --42 file > > and ls --help are permitted as extensions. > > ---------------- end quote ----------------- > > This doesn't mean what you think it means. Note that it allows --42 > (which is no help, since old code doesn't use that), not -42. "when > the utility is used in line with the forms defined by the standard" - > i.e., when it matches the syntax of the guidelines - then "it follows > the Utility Syntax Guidelines" - i.e., it obeys the semantic > requirements of the guidelines. > > > (note that this implies that "ls --help" does violate > > the Utility Syntax Guidelines, but that it's OK to do so) > > Right - since it doesn't follow the syntax, the guidelines don't have > anything to say about the meaning of --help. But the guidelines do > have something to say about the meaning of anything that does follow > the syntax, including -42 (specifically, that its meaning should be > the same as the meaning of -24, -2 -4, and -4 -2). I'm no happier > about this than you are, but that's what the standard says.
Nope. That was a typo. I've quoted the continuing discussion of the austin-group-l list below. Note that Andrew Josey has made edits to the rationale regarding this. Posting order: Schwarz Konrad, Andrew Josey, Joerg Schilling, Andrew Josey, Joerg Schilling, Andrew Josey :::::: Shouldn't this be: :::::: :::::: Thus head -42 file and ls --help are permitted as extensions. ::::: ::::: Yes it should be :::: :::: I am not sure if the discussion did went the right way.... :::: :::: I would agree that --longopt is a permitted :::: extensions, but I don't call -42 a long option, :::: so I see no reason toallow --42. :::: :::: Explanation: :::: :::: -41 is a _zero_ length option that is followed :::: by a numeric argument. :::: :::: As the numeric argument may be negative, -42 and --42 :::: are definitely different things. ::: ::: Your assumption appears to be that extensions have to ::: follow the utility syntax guidelines, when they do not. :: :: Sorry, I don't understand you. :: :: I thought that extensions should extend existing :: practice and not contradit it. : : There's a difference between recommendations and : requirements. Also a difference between required : features for an interface and extensions. Extensions : are allowed so long as standard features are not affected. : : XBD 12.2 has a clause allowing extensions that : are in violation of the utility syntax guidelines. : : The case for head -42 is especially clear since : it was previously defined by the standard. There was : no intent to disallow the previously allowed syntax. : I put further rationale in XBD ERN 16 _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils