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