Re: preparing for 2.3b

[Joel E. Denny]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Akim Demaille wrote:

> Le 6 mars 08 ? 01:49, Joel E. Denny a ?crit :
> 
> > > 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 think so.  Open Group does not specify an argument for -d.  It also 
says:

  Options without option-arguments should be accepted when grouped behind 
  one '-' delimiter.

Thus, -d can be bundled with other short options.  For example, -dv.  If 
-d takes an argument, v becomes the argument rather than another option.

> I always lose
> the URL of the reference, I found
> http://linux-documentation.com/en/man/man1p/yacc.html which does
> confirm this.

I always google "open group yacc".

> > 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.

I like that better too.