supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Robert Bruce Findler
(25 Sep 2002 21:20 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
sperber@xxxxxx
(26 Sep 2002 07:10 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Anthony Carrico
(26 Sep 2002 13:52 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Robert Bruce Findler
(26 Sep 2002 13:58 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Anthony Carrico
(26 Sep 2002 14:05 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments sperber@xxxxxx (26 Sep 2002 14:12 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Tom Lord
(26 Sep 2002 17:22 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments sperber@xxxxxx 26 Sep 2002 14:12 UTC
>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Carrico <xxxxxx@memebeam.org> writes: Anthony> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Robert Bruce Findler wrote: >> Right -- I did see that there, and I posted on an internal PLT mailing >> list where I met with opposition to requiring the extra quotes: Anthony> > >> -L"first-arg second-arg" >> --long-name="first-arg second-arg" Anthony> > >> Oh well. Anthony> I feel for you, I've heard private support for the opposite position off Anthony> this list too. If anyone is passionate about this issue, speak up on this Anthony> list please. I feel somewhat passionately for GNU/POSIX-style command-line processing. After a few weeks' absence from PLT Scheme, I usually have to read the docs to actually believe they've done this differently from everyone else. I find PLT's way of doing things unnecessarily hard to remember. If the quotes don't pacify the opposition, how-about --long-name=first-arg,second-arg or something? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla