Subject: Re: deprecating long options in tar and cpio (was: CVS commit: src)
To: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 01/27/1999 02:47:58
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 03:40:32PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Andrew Brown wrote:
>: >Exactly how does having longopts for compatibility (and the ability to have
>: >more than 52 options) *hurt* you?
>: 52?! gzip -9! and so on...
>Tar already uses -[0-9]. As well as almost every letter in the alphabet.
>So make it `62'.
there's really no reason to be so limiting.
Missing filename ("less -\?" for help)
so we could easily use the rest of the isgraph() non-alphanumerics as
options, except for - and : which have other uses to getopt(), some of
which would, of course, have to be escaped from the shell. which
makes it 92, i believe? ;-)
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."