>> 	if (behavior==BSD && (opt_f || opt_g || ...))
>> 		errx("bsd behavior invalid");
>> 
>> no?
>
>Without actually coding it up, I think it would look a little unwieldy
>in practice and not help maintainability.  Also, the order of the
>options can have a bearing - for something trully ugly try
>"ps -wwl -o rss,stat -u" and see how it mixes everything together
>and is completely different to ps -wwu -o rss,stat -l"...

oh.  heheh.  yeah.  that's a very good point.  not that the ordering
is mized up (that's weird), but that -u might need an arg, but -o (in
your above example) is definitely not an arg.

>> of course...if you've already done it the other way...don't you have
>> to prescan the options for the -[BV] switch?  do you insist that it be
>> the first one?
>
>Yup!

okay.

>> what if i wanted to do "ps -uaxww"?
>
>The current behaviour is to have BSD and SysV mode separate, except that
>adding "ps -ef" to BSD mode was easy...

what's that supposed to do?  the same thing as "ps -axl"?  that's just
weird...

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."