Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec@gmail.com> writes:

> Is this Good Enough™ for your purposes (Malcolm, Wilhelm), or should we
> sophisticate the regexp further?  FWIW, in no particular order:
>
> (a) env(1) does seem to support mixing up arbitrary options with -S¹, so
>     in principle it would make sense to support that;
>
> (b) Eli did not seem too found of the regexp hammer², so I don't know
>     which direction we'd want to go between maximally correct (accept
>     all arguments, _as long as_ -S|--split-string is in there) or good
>     enough (just skip over --everything --that --looks --like -a
>     --switch).
>
> (c) FWIW the "maximally correct" regexp might not be _that_ ugly, since
>     "-[v]S[OPTION]" must be the *first* token after env; in other words
>     no need to support --some-option --split-string --more-options.

Well, sorry, couldn't resist.  How do the attached patches look?  The
new testcases should tell the whole story.

('make && make -C test files-tests' seems none the worse for wear)