Ricardo Wurmus (2017-07-26 10:59 +0200) wrote: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis: [...] >>> This seems good to me. I just wonder if there are legitimate cases >>> where a package regexp would look like a command line option. If that’s >>> not the case could we just “unread” the argument and parse it as the >>> next option? >> >> I thought about it but in theory “-” is perfectly legitimate, so I >> thought we’d rather not try to be smart. Thoughts? > > Is it really legitimate? The regular expression is supposed to match on > package names and we have no packages starting with “-”. And even if we > did (or the user has some oddly named packages in GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH), > they could write “^-”. Or we could demand that the argument be quoted > (“'--foo'” or “"--foo"”) in that case. > > It just seems like a really rare edge case to *want* it to behave as it > does now.
I am on "not try to be smart" side. Mark described why "-foo" is a legitimate regexp, so I think it's better to allow users to be free in a choice of regexps. -- Alex
