>> Agreed, this needs a good cleaning. > >I'd like to see a lot of the noddy `-foo sets bool foo, -nofoo clears >it'-case processing in a switch disappear into a central, new, >option-processing routine.
FWIW, I'm fine with that. But ... as long as we're making a list of things that we should add to smatch(), here are a few others that would be helpful. - We have a lot of commands that call OTHER commands, and a lot of switches need to be passed down. post(8) is the biggest offender here; a lot of switches to send(1) are really switches to post(8), and when you add a new switch to post(8) you have to add it to send(1) AND whatnow(1) and whom(1) and probably one or two more places that I forget. Being able to declare a list of arguments to post(8) that could be used by other programs would be a HUGE win. I think this would require an extension to smatch to make it work properly, though. - Having a common switch that would spit out a list of switches that a program takes and _whether or not they take arguments_ would ALSO be a huge win. Why? Well, let's say you write your own postproc; it turns out you need to know which switches take arguments. Being able to get a list of switches and figure out which ones take arguments would sure be useful for shell scripting (I realize you could maybe do this with the existing -help output, but it would be a bit hairy and I'd rather have something easier to use). --Ken -- Nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers