[getopt-sig] More about commands on the command line

[A.T. Hofkamp]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

> > It makes options and (command) more equal citizens.
>
> Ok, that's a valid point, though you also have to consider arguments
> (either to the options, or to the program).
>
> I wonder if, with all the generality, people who try to use the package
> would wonder "how the heck do I do the _common_case_". Packages like

This is where documentation comes in. Lots of examples, careful seperation
between the normal case and the 'dangerous' stuff.

> Optick handle the common case well (and reasonably seamlessly) and force
> people to go through some number of hoops for the special stuff, which is
> something i consider a Good Thing.

Yes, but Optik's usability (or rather the usability of our resulting package)
should not drop to 0 when the demands are bigger than what can be delivered.

> >   like in 'tar xzf myfile.tgz'. Not pretty and not recommanded, but it fits in
> >   my solution without major head aches.
>
> Note that this is also a "magic" command, i.e. it rips itself apart just
> like you "-spam" example.

Good point.

> Besides, traditionally Unix doesn't _have_ commands. It has differrent
> tools. I consider "rpm -q" a totally different tool from "rpm -U", which

Unix also didn't use to have graphics and stuff like Gnome and KDE. While I
hate it, many users cannot live without (for example, we recently had
complaints that some of our systems were unusable, because the new KDE and
Gnome versions were not installed).

Our package should be ready for the future in the sense that it should not stop
people from solving their problem in the way they want to.
That it takes extra effort to do something non-standard is not a problem in my
opinion.

> Your code certainly helps with (eventually ;-) arriving at some sort of
> consensus as to what we want to accomplish.

Let's hope so :-)


Albert
-- 
Constructing a computer program is like writing a painting