Quoth G. Branden Robinson:
I'm referring to [file ...] vs [file...].
Oh. The point of this is that the arguments (operands in this case)
remain whitespace-delimited, where it might not be the case for a
repeatable single-letter option.
foobar [-adX] [-v...] file ...
foobar [-h | --help]
-v... Be more verbose. The option letter can be repeated, increasing
the verbosity level.
"[-v ...]" would imply that only "-v -v -v" is allowed, instead of
"-vvv".
Only if you can’t group options. It is an issue that there are
a few different options syntaxes and often, the specific one used
is not documented. I’d argue that’s acceptable for those
utilities adhering to the POSIX Utility Syntax Guidelines; that
is, those that just use getopt. And thus,
foobar [-v ...]
-v ... Be more verbose. This options can be specified
multiple times to increase the verbosity level.
Makes it reasonably clear that you can make it very verbose by
both -vvv and -v -v -v.
I think this is a matter of achieving an accurate and unambiguous
synopsis grammar.
Now, if you do not adhere to the guidelines—if you require -vvv or
don’t allow grouping or both—you likely want a different synopsis
syntax anyway: Then, -asdf could be interpreted as “the
single-dash long options asdf” and you shouldn’t write the short
options as -adX.
None of this invalidates your explanation of ellipses and space
therebefor. But I don’t like your explanation. Point is,
I wouldn’t have gotten the idea of not putting a space there in
the first place: An ellipsis is most always delimited by spaces,
in synopses as in prose.
Now, for opinions differing from yours: In mdoc world, the
ellipses frequently are part of the argument, as in
.Ar path ...
and thus also italicized. In POSIX, an ellipsis is not
italicized and not delimited by spaces, as in
p̲a̲t̲h̲...
[-o f̲o̲r̲m̲a̲t̲]...
