Re: [bug-inetutils] regarding route

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > So I'm reworking route (for the third time since I've always
   > manage to misplace it).  Question is, should we support the old
   > syntax for route?

   What is "old syntax"? Do you mean "route add|del ... netmask ...",
   etc?  If so, then definitely - yes, we should.

Ok, hopefully I won't misplace it again... :-)

   > Currently, I'm ignoring that, but before I go about adding it to
   > inetutils, the easy (and right since it will keep the real
   > version clean) solution is to have a shell script wrapper that
   > would work like `the old' route, what do people think?

   Let's split the task. Do it your way and I'll add the "old syntax"
   later, as I did for ifconfig.

I never really liked the way ifconfig's argument parsing was done,
mostly since it conflates lots of parts into a jumbled up soup.  Would
have rather seen specific wrappers for each platform instead.