> 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. OK I understand that too. However, IMHO it could be avoid with a not "suffix" prefixed option name, like --numeric-suffixes does in a sense, no ?
Anyway, I'm completely new in its project so I learn from you. Cheers, Jeremy