Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Comments on UNIX command option syntax
Message-ID: <835@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 19:03:04 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.835
Posted: Mon Nov  4 19:03:04 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 06:25:06 EST
References: <1260@wanginst.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 35

In article <1260@wanginst.UUCP> perlman@wanginst.UUCP (Gary Perlman) writes:
>
>                 Proposed Syntax Standard
>                 For UNIX* System Commands
>
>RULE  4:  All options must be delimited by ``-''.

	Doesn't allow on/off toggles.
>
>RULE  6:  The first option-argument following an option
>          must be preceded by white space.

	I feel that space optional is more compatible with existing
practice, too many programs do it both ways. I would certainly hate to
say "nroff -m e file" instead of "nroff -me file", since I think of
the 'me' as a unit, that is I think the latter is more readable.
>
>RULE  9:  All options precede operands on the command line.
>
	This cannot be applied to compilers and loaders, where the
library options *must* come after or among the files to get the
correct semantics. It also makes switching options during processing
impossible, which is necessary for some sorts of sequential
processing.

>RULE 11:  The order of options relative to one another
>          should not matter.

	Rules out sequential processing.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa