Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:35:11AM +0100, FRIGN wrote: > > My considerations here were that it was quite arbitrary not to document -h, > > given we "allow" a command to be passed to slock as second + further > > arguments. However, I respect your stances on this and will revert it, but > > also document -h in the manpage. > > The right way to do this is to consider -h an invalid option. For invalid > options always print usage.
Heyho, then we would have to assume users don't have *any* binary starting with a `-` that they might want to run after locking, but I can still live with that. --Markus
