Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:59:52AM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> git cmd --abbrev=10 -n=4 > > actually -n=4 isn't understood atm, only -n4 and -n 4 are. Ah, my mistake. And I do not think accepting -n=4 is a good idea (it is not historically done). After thinking about it a bit more, I think I was worried too much about burdening the users to remember the differences between options with, without and optional option-arguments [*1*]. They need to know the difference between options with and without option-arguments already because single letter options can be combined if they are without option-arguments, and they have to write "shortlog -new72" but not "shortlog -wen72". If they want to be extra sure, they can be more explicit and say "shortlog -n -e -w72". So let's go with the version you outlined --- options that take optional option-arguments must get their option-arguments stuck to them, but otherwise option-arguments can also be given as a separate word that follows the option. [Footnote] *1* The fact some of our commands support options with optional option-arguments is already against Guideline #7 in "12.2 Utility Syntax Guidelines", so other POSIX guidelines are not useful for us in deciding what behaviour to model after. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
