[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/05/25]
On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:30:35 -0400 (EDT), spc@xxxxxx.xxx (Sean 'Captain
Napalm' Conner) wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great H.Merijn Brand once stated:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:53:56 -0500 (CDT), sabrina downard <sld@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you do not have a better use for -h, and you have coded a usage
> > > statement for --help, then how damned difficult would it be to make -h
> > > equal to --help? Since you're already going to print a damned error
> > > telling me to use --help instead?
> >
> > Sorry, I disagree. And I have never liked -h to be help.
> > IMHO it should be either -? or --help, and -help could be acceptable
>
> Notice she said "if you do not have a better use for -h."
And I added *yet*.
Most of the programs I write are never done, and get more and more options
along the lifetime of the utility.
> Me? The stuff I write will print a help message if any options given
> aren't supported. But I agree with Sabrina:
>
> GenericUnixPrompt> mv -h
> mv: invalid option -- h
> Try `mv --help' for more information.
>
> Um? Okay, it's an invalid switch. You detected it's an invalid switch.
> You printed an error as such.
>
> -spc (What I hate is when the man page says "Use info")
that sucks.
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
There's stuff above here
Generated at 09:00 on 29 May 2006 by mariachi 0.52