PSARC 2009/228 ls enhancements (draft opinion)

[James Carlson]

Danek Duvall writes:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:51:32AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> 
> > The second concern pertained to the fact that  for  some  of
> > those same options, the presence of an argument is optional.
> > The members present felt that while such an "optional  argu-
> > ment"  might be ambiguous for a short flag, for long options
> > there is no ambiguity (because of the separating  "="),  and
> > hence the behavior is acceptable.
> 
> Long options aren't required to be separated from their option arguments
> with an equals sign, though they can be -- they can also be separated by a
> space:
> 
>     /usr/gnu/bin/ls --sort none
> 
> and
> 
>     /usr/gnu/bin/ls --sort=none

Ouch.  That's not what the original project actually defined.

If that's really what's being parsed with an optional argument, then I
would withdraw my comments.  Such a construction would need an
explicit "the ARC knows this is wrong, but we're approving it anyway
because of compatibility" note.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677