Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There's no rush. Let's wait until the standard is formally changed or
>> corrected, as I imagine it will be.
>
> There is a rush.
Not really. The code has had its current form since February 2002.
So any problem has been out in the field for 2.5 yea
On 2004-08-27T00:09-0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
) > (note that this implies that "ls --help" does violate
) > the Utility Syntax Guidelines, but that it's OK to do so)
) Right - since it doesn't follow the syntax, the guidelines don't have
) anything to say about the meaning of --help. But the guidelin
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 00:09, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > begin quote ---
> > XBD ERN 16 Utilities that have extensions violating the Utility Syntax
> > Guidelines Accept as marked.
> >
> > It was agreed that an interpretation be made
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 00:09, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > begin quote ---
> > XBD ERN 16 Utilities that have extensions violating the Utility Syntax
> > Guidelines Accept as marked.
> >
> > It was agreed that an interpretation be made
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> begin quote ---
> XBD ERN 16 Utilities that have extensions violating the Utility Syntax
> Guidelines Accept as marked.
>
> It was agreed that an interpretation be made , that the standard
> is clear and no change is required.
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 13:57, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's no more legal or illegal than "head -42 foo".
>
> "head -42 foo" is explicitly disallowed by the guidelines.
> "head --lines 42 foo" is not. But we're veering from the main point.
>
> > I'm b
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's no more legal or illegal than "head -42 foo".
"head -42 foo" is explicitly disallowed by the guidelines.
"head --lines 42 foo" is not. But we're veering from the main point.
> I'm bothering.
Thanks. (It's a thankless job, normally. :-)
> So,
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 13:55, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Guideline 3 says "Multi-digit options should not be allowed."
> >> That's an explicit prohibition.
> >
> > I meant, where is --lines allowed,
>
> It's a different syntax, that is not addressed by t
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Guideline 3 says "Multi-digit options should not be allowed."
>> That's an explicit prohibition.
>
> I meant, where is --lines allowed,
It's a different syntax, that is not addressed by the guidelines.
> "Each option name should be a single alphanume
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 23:34, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 13:49, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Well, so does the --lines option.
> >>
> >> No, that uses an allowed extension. It's not
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 13:49, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Well, so does the --lines option.
>>
>> No, that uses an allowed extension. It's not prohibited, the way that
>> multi-digit options are prohibited.
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 13:49, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, so does the --lines option.
>
> No, that uses an allowed extension. It's not prohibited, the way that
> multi-digit options are prohibited.
Where? You can have a "-W lines=42" option.
Guide
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 11:44, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > a POSIX-conforming "head" program may
> > support a "-1" option. It may also support a
> > "-2" option, and so on.
>
> That violates POSIX Utility Syntax Guidelines 3 and 11. See:
>
> http://www.o
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, so does the --lines option.
No, that uses an allowed extension. It's not prohibited, the way that
multi-digit options are prohibited.
> I think "violates" is too strong of a word for
> anything called "Guidelines", but anyway...
The standard s
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a POSIX-conforming "head" program may
> support a "-1" option. It may also support a
> "-2" option, and so on.
That violates POSIX Utility Syntax Guidelines 3 and 11. See:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/basedefs/xbd_chap12.html#tag_12_
Note that "head" is a historic BSD tool. You broke a shitload of
stuff when you took out the old BSD options.
Nobody took them out, they are still there. Read the info pages for
details.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://li
POSIX places requirements on both coreutils and
the coreutils users. POSIX-conforming users are
only allowed to use features that are part of the
POSIX standard. For coreutils, POSIX conformance
means that 100% of the standard is correctly
implemented.
In no way does the standard prohibit an imple
17 matches
Mail list logo
