From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0406201514f40a0ce@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:14:54 -0400
From: Russ Cox <russcox@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] new code in cvs for plan9ports; not in web tarball
In-Reply-To: <200406201908.i5KJ8hn26197@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <ee9e417a040620094573f6f12c@mail.gmail.com>
	<200406201908.i5KJ8hn26197@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a8299856-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Nice!
> Just a thought: would it make sense to also support
> (for a more 'seamless' integration in the X11 world)
> some of the common X11 command line options, like
>  -display and -geometry or would the multi-character
> nature of them completely 'conflict' with the plan 9
> way of doing things?
> (I can understand arguments pro and contra, I just
>  thought it could be nice to raise the issue, once)

these options are fundamentally at odds with the
plan 9 way of parsing options.  

russ