Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Not really. A <pathspec> is a set of <pathspec element>s, so >> writing "<pathspec-element>..." and "<pathspec>" are equivalent. > > So, "yes"? I.e. leaving aside "pathspec" or "pathspec-element" > "<pathspecs>" is redundant to "<pathspecs>..." in this intpreretation? If you leave it aside, then the answer becomes meaningless, no? > But for any given "<x>" the "<x>" is not the same as "<x>..."? Correct. "<collection-of-xs>" is equivalent to "[<x>...]", but "<x>" is not equivalent to "[<x>...]" (with or without [] around the latter). > But that's really not what we mean most of the time, we *don't* want > that "..." on the argument to "--opt", because it only takes one > argument. Yes. So an option that takes a single pathspec element should say as such, I would think. But I thought that I have already said we should shrink the scope of this series, concentrating on making -h output and doc match, while adjusting the body text in the doc to match the phrasing used in the SYNOPSIS updated to match -h output, so this whole thing is outside the scope of this topic, I would say. Thanks.
