From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: 40549@debbugs.gnu.org, Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Subject: bug#40549: More usability issues:
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ0zP54Q8QXzepF9NNX3cLp5Yo0h_zedj4gbtmuaSeF4uQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mu6dcz8v.fsf@gnu.org>
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 10:51, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> 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#tag_12_02
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Argument-Syntax.html
Therefore, it deserves to document it, IMHO.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-12 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-11 9:23 bug#40549: [usability] revert last generation Tom Zander via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2020-04-23 19:37 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-04-23 19:51 ` bug#40549: More usability issues: Tom via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2020-04-24 8:28 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 0:27 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 8:51 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-05-12 9:54 ` Tom Zander via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2020-05-12 11:35 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 16:23 ` Tom Zander via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2020-05-12 18:08 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 20:19 ` Tom Zander via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2020-05-12 21:38 ` zimoun
2020-05-13 6:22 ` Tom Zander via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2020-05-13 16:32 ` Arne Babenhauserheide
2020-05-13 18:02 ` zimoun
2020-05-13 18:53 ` Arne Babenhauserheide
2020-05-14 9:08 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 14:10 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 10:38 ` zimoun
2020-05-12 13:58 ` zimoun [this message]
2020-05-14 8:15 ` Efraim Flashner
2020-05-14 9:13 ` zimoun
2020-05-14 14:25 ` bug#40549: Fix -p profile -p profile -I zimoun
2020-05-12 13:03 ` bug#40549: proposal for 'process-actions' zimoun
2020-05-12 16:26 ` Tom Zander via Bug reports for GNU Guix
2021-09-08 12:49 ` bug#40549: [usability] revert last generation zimoun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJ3okZ0zP54Q8QXzepF9NNX3cLp5Yo0h_zedj4gbtmuaSeF4uQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=40549@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=tomz@freedommail.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.