Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It's arguably more correct to say "[<option>...]" than either of these > forms, but the vast majority of our documentation uses the > "[<options>]" form to indicate an arbitrary number of options, let's > do the same in these cases, which were the odd ones out. Yeah, I agree these should say [<option>...] to mean zero-or-more of them. It may be fine, as long as it is clear that we use [<options>] as a short-hand for it, though.
