Anurag S. Maskey writes: > When the options to the subcommand is wrong, the subcommand specific > usage and help text (similar to what's in dladm(1m) will be printed. A > new command_help_text(int cmd_num) will return a short text description > from dladm(1m) for that subcommand.
I think that's actually the wrong direction to go. As meem wrote in the description for that CR: I think providing the full help output would be disorienting and ultimately less helpful than the current message -- but I agree that a subcommand-specific message would be very nice. I have reservations about encoding the man page text into the command output, as you seem to be suggesting here. Will we do this for all commands? If we do it for just "some" commands, won't the commands that lack this man-page-like output eventually be reported as bugs in the system? Should we have a blanket Solaris-wide policy that commands generally be able to invoke /usr/bin/man on input error? If not, won't the system just become harder to use, with some commands working one way and others working another? Why can't users who need help type "man" anyway? I'd much rather see a single-line synopsis on error in a subcommand, and a very short list of subcommands if presented with an unknown subcommand (compressed to one or a few lines would be nicer). If the user needs anything more than a terse reminder, then he ought to be reading the man page. That's what it's for. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
