Re: preparing for 2.3b

[Akim Demaille]

Le 6 mars 08 à 01:49, Joel E. Denny a écrit :

> > There is also -d which takes no
> > argument, although the long option does :(  I'd prefer that short and
> > long options have the same behavior, at least to avoid lying when we
> > state
> >
> >        Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short
> >        options too.
> >
> > but I guess POSIX will make trouble?  And anyway, this is likely to
> > break existing Makefiles :(
>
> It seems like we're stuck with this one exception.

So you do confirm that POSIX require this, right?  I always lose
the URL of the reference, I found
http://linux-documentation.com/en/man/man1p/yacc.html which does
confirm this.

>  Maybe we should add
> the statement:
>
>  The same is true for optional arguments with one exception: unlike
>  --defines, -d cannot take an argument since POSIX Yacc requires  
> that -d
>  can be bundled with other short options.
>
> This would at least help future developers know the scheme we're  
> trying to
> follow.  It might help users remember how the options go as well.
> Overkill?

I don't know.  Another option would be to introduce -D which would
be the real match to --define.  I tend to prefer this.  And we
deprecate -d with an argument.