From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id iNhxAOGrul5FHAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:00:01 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id AEcIFe+rul7dHQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:00:15 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB12E940509 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:38482 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYVS9-0005mD-Q8 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:00:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYVRz-0005kv-Fh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:00:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44733) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYVRz-0007IA-4J for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:00:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYVRy-0002ts-W6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 10:00:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#40549: More usability issues: Resent-From: zimoun Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 14:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40549 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 40549-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40549.158929194411043 (code B ref 40549); Tue, 12 May 2020 14:00:02 +0000 Received: (at 40549) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2020 13:59:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56279 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYVR2-0002s3-ES for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 09:59:04 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com ([209.85.222.194]:41360) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYVR1-0002rW-2R for 40549@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 09:59:03 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id n14so13607736qke.8 for <40549@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:59:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lmEn2u/A9MguYT7fxcXYp5LnhNCo2Vy3DU97M+dWY/E=; b=VRpnugIerY25U1rqYSSVY9L6dVg3JXH+NpYSE+X5hHPjsg/aA/7zKIzyHAWTzKAumQ a0MFfHYGWSXd952+5U5o+67euuiMsqGk1PXbpaq+3vtZl5poFNIxGJxLxRLODryjxOjT yShDquAw6hPq3WjdT6UQvEL/t3p4IpD0aUUSlt/90rkRyqFg+h5bWcWuZpwc7r30s/IO yoovYhzpT0ESZqeb5vzCgw92DWUv4CQJfQAW8vTmwJ+gsblCWoW2FpJ9lQHSWsRH7WgI IyNCavDDmluHYfVipH5eduKcbrpZpjP2b2yJVEfdDEv1zjiGR/C5cCDRURHJXMjsm0Qx duAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lmEn2u/A9MguYT7fxcXYp5LnhNCo2Vy3DU97M+dWY/E=; b=g67+aJnlwaKLCpxCZBysruAlLBFQak+cdC5cwxNJe7tzzd2XJxmMuHjKWVrrEgek/d 59ie+nMIk5CnIQYmqybn/QfjIUYdoV+3W5EXPOIa+Dbvjyipor6ZZztNSAyNbeMgVw46 4EwOXn5yB2U5+4Rd66adQJwTKjqPRbv0kVjw+R39ZdANG3yZXP4kWezbOTfmWpbXbqzc 6H2tRxIYAmaWzlOqV7jdAY/jJwGUtspD3LY6lVgOsYJ3KV28OlvkIcHRsUk6lL94VllB 2TrdJfhsnWtW3ku5wK+A+IcRvTnaCap94WBP+t8nhd+K4qQoueFE9ilqNF2qPO8C4Twh 9dNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZRN4bUwECoKKwy7vxM5pBFXBHAvo3O+bpCLXRvR/QYvJbey5Qc y6hpCPgajlQGPbUavGfY3F5AD7n+wDLV1oEpjCY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLcumgOsMt6afJsUoSBlYuXFvRAmmu970g2R9jpJ7RT7/G9v0nrQGfKr8wAQfMYzpSfLaKz6PPYwjpT1GFZbBc= X-Received: by 2002:a37:4e05:: with SMTP id c5mr20963424qkb.232.1589291937401; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:58:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6171889.DvuYhMxLoT@cherry> <3827671.e9J7NaK4W3@peach> <87mu6dcz8v.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87mu6dcz8v.fsf@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:45 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 40549@debbugs.gnu.org, Tom Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 0.09 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=VRpnugIe; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [0.09 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.53999338265202]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.06), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:-]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[zimontoutoune@gmail.com,bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[gnu.org:email,opengroup.org:url]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[40549@debbugs.gnu.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[8]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : SPF not aligned (relaxed),none] X-TUID: ldGRE+vvYOna On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 10:51, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Nothing new here, and everything is properly documented. Using optional argument with short-option names is unusual, AFAIK. And for sure, there is an ambiguity; as we are seeing here. :-) However, the only mention of that is in the commentaries of srfi-37. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ;;; `required-arg?' and `optional-arg?' are mutually exclusive ;;; booleans and indicate whether an argument must be or may be ;;; provided. Besides the obvious, this affects semantics of ;;; short-options, as short-options with a required or optional ;;; argument cannot be followed by other short options in the same ;;; program-arguments string, as they will be interpreted collectively ;;; as the option's argument. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/tree/module/srfi/srfi-37.scm#n51 Well, using short-option with optional-argument is not recommended by POSIX, neither GNU (if I understand well) https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap12.html#ta= g_12_02 https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Argument-Syntax.html Therefore, it deserves to document it, IMHO.