Re: [9front] quality of life usage consistency patch

[ori@eigenstate.org]

Thanks for taking the time to do this!

> A not so small patch set for normalizing usage messages to match the 
> greater of the two styles, usage vs. Usage.

I'll take a look at this, but it'll take a bit of time. I want
to make sure that both the usage and the docs match the code.
 
> I found a few other inconsistencies between programs and attempted to 
> correct instances where information seemed to be missing or lost. This 
> includes missing arguments, etc. in a manual (as per mothra(1)) and in 
> usage messages where arguments existed in the manual, instead.
> 
> In particular, gzip(1) seems to mismatch particularly with compress(1). 
> I haven't attempted to correct this yet as I'm not sure what the best 
> approach would be since the manual seems to try to normalize flags 
> across a set of programs which don't necessarily share all arguments.

Is the issue that the flags don't match between them in the manpage?
If so, how does this sound:

	The options flags have a common meaning across programs,
	when implemented:

		-a:	alligator clips are attached to the files
		-b: bromine is poured down your pants
		-c: charlie chaplin is summoned

	These flags are specific to gzip:

		-d: a pack of wild dogs chases chaplin, if the -c flag is given.

	...etc

> I hope this isn't too much bikeshedding ☺.

printing the correct set of flags is valuable.
if you were only changing 'Usage' to 'usage', I'd call it pointless.

> Python and ghostscript were intentionally ignored as I wasn't sure what 
> the protocol should be for changing these.

Yeah, not sure -- I'd leave the usage output untouched, so long
as its correct. They're alien anyways.