From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: PATCH: assume -s Date: 04 Sep 2003 19:56:30 +0100 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20030828093229.F1440@netdot.net> <20030829092031.S1440@netdot.net> <87vfsak55h.fsf@zip.com.au> <87he3tto3v.fsf@zip.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1062734799 8922 80.91.224.253 (5 Sep 2003 04:06:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 04:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 05 06:06:37 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19v7ro-0002fe-01 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:06:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 19v7pk-0006Ct-O8 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 00:04:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 19uzHt-0007wN-6A for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 19uzHg-0007o9-Hm for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 14:56:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.21] (helo=s1.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 19uzHW-0007jA-MP for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 14:56:34 -0400 Original-Received: from laruns.ossau.uklinux.net (bts-0347.dialup.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.49.91]) by s1.uklinux.net (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h84IuWU23250; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:56:32 +0100 Original-Received: from laruns.ossau.uklinux.net.ossau.uklinux.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by laruns.ossau.uklinux.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id 8A5FCDC4D3; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:56:30 +0100 (BST) Original-To: Kevin Ryde In-Reply-To: <87he3tto3v.fsf@zip.com.au> Original-Lines: 37 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:2228 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:2228 >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Ryde writes: Kevin> Neil Jerram writes: >> >> No. Personally I think this is useful. Does it contravene some GNU >> standard though? Kevin> Well I guess it's a posix convention that `--' ends option processing. Kevin> I think it'd be pretty important for consistency to do the same thing Kevin> with or without it. I think there's room to interpret this convention as consistent with the new behaviour. From Guile's perspective, the script filename appears as an option (as it always has done); non-options are not passed into whatever code gets run as the value of (cdr (command-line)). All the recent change does is say that, for convenience, you can leave out the "-s". >> (If the script uses getopt, though, I wonder if something like >> "guile foo.scm -s switch -- arg" works? I'd guess it does.) Kevin> Hope so. If args are passed to foo.scm then you wouldn't want options Kevin> to be sought out right through the command line (the way gnu getopt Kevin> does), but instead left for foo to interpret. Agreed, and this is what happens: [neil@laruns ~]$ guile test.scm -s switch -- arg ("-s" "switch" "--" "arg") where test.scm is: (write (cdr (command-line))) (newline) Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user