Eric Blake <ebb9 <at> byu.net> writes:
> Some of these programs recognize the @option{--help} and @option{--version}
> -options only when one of them is the sole command line argument.
> +options only when one of them is the sole command line argument. For
> +these programs, abbreviations of the long options are not recognized.
In subsequent testing, I realized this is not entirely true. Should I work on
a followup patch that makes this sentence true?
For example,
$ /bin/echo --help --version | head -n1
--help --version
$ /bin/echo --help | head -n1
Usage: /bin/echo [OPTION]... [STRING]...
$ /bin/echo --he | head -n1
Usage: /bin/echo [OPTION]... [STRING]...
$ /bin/echo -n -e hi\\n | head -n1
hi
Certainly some inconsistent behavior. echo takes multiple arguments, but only
when they are the short options -[neE] (I guess it's okay that they don't have
long-option variants?). But when --help or --version is present, echo acts
like it takes exactly one argument. The usage text doesn't really portray
that. The other thing that is awkward is that we are recognizing
abbreviations; it seems like it would make more sense for "echo --he" to
output "--he" rather than the help text. POSIX isn't much help here, either,
as it only specifies that portable apps can't use -n (but says nothing about -
e), and we are already violating the (lame) POSIX requirement that -e be on by
default, thus giving no guidance on whether we are better off requiring the
user to write "/bin/echo -ne" instead of "/bin/echo -n -e" when they want both
options.
Another case in point:
$ /bin/[ --help me | head -n1
/bin/[: missing `]'
$ /bin/[ --help | head -n1
Usage: test EXPRESSION
$ /bin/[ --hel | head -n1
Usage: test EXPRESSION
Should the last example also complain about missing `]', rather than printing
help text?
--
Eric Blake
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
