Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 01/30/2012 05:33 PM, Jérémy Compostella wrote: >> Pádraig, Jim, others, >> >> - Solution 1: >> Pádraig wrotes: >>> I wonder might we have a separate option, --suffix-start, and >>> theoretically that could accept alphabetic options too? I'm not >>> suggesting we do this, but it's worth discussion. >> That's was my first idea but since your first mail subject was "split >> --numeric-suffixes=N" I assumed that you already thought about it as a >> bad solution. Wrong assumption I guess. >> >> - Solution 2: >> Pádraig wrotes: >>> Thinking a bit more about it, it's probably worth to split the short >>> and long options. Have -d not take a param as before, and have >>> --numeric-suffixes take an optional param. >>> To do this, leave 'optional_argument' in the long_opts array, and just >>> remove the :: from the getopts call. > > My vote is for solution 2. > Less options = simpler interface for users. > I don't think it's too onerous to mandate, > numeric suffixes for this feature.
Same here. Another reason to avoid adding --suffix<anything> is that it would invalidate -- rendering ambiguous -- any existing use of split that takes advantage of --suffix (or --s for that matter) being an abbreviation of the --suffix-length option name.
