Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site looking.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: net.unix,net.cog-eng Subject: Re: hang vol_ser=123456 file=mytape mode=read_write density=1600 Message-ID: <135@looking.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 00:00:00 EST Article-I.D.: looking.135 Posted: Thu Mar 15 00:00:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 16-Mar-84 02:08:21 EST References: <3533@utcsrgv.UUCP> Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont Lines: 24 I find objection to this syntax on the grounds that it isn't unix a bit questionable. There is almost nothing consistent in the syntax of unix commands. Why do people tolerate "dd", which has a syntax like this? Why do some commands use dashes for their options, while others like tar, dump and ps use just the letters? Why do half the commands have a syntax -b value and the others use -bvalue? Why do sort, uniq and vi have options specified with a "+"? Why do some commands allow options anywhere on the line and others only at the beginning? Suggesting you can type a command with no args and get a usage line is total ****. Many commands do things when typed alone, and some that don't still don't give usage lines. (QNX has a system that if absolutely no args are given (argc==0) then you give a usage line, and the shell has a means to call routines like this -> "command ?" so that is a consistent system, but don't say unix has one.) The syntax used at waterloo is a lot easier to remember and has been designed so that the same option (ie. file= ) has the same name and syntax on every command. Furthermore, there is an abbreviator that allows options like mode=read to be typed as m=read if that is unambiguous. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304