Re: optional argument?

[Peter Stephenson <pws@cambridgesiliconradio.com>]

> Hrmpf. Make `='-options complete the argument *only* after the equal
> sign? Add a new specification type, say `-opt==' for options that
> don't accept the argument in a separte word (should the long-option
> auto-detection code use it then?)?
> 
> I think I prefer the latter. Opinions?

More generally, I wonder if a good way to handle variant option syntax
might be to allow a `profile' of some sort to be passed down to arguments,
either as an option or a parameter, saying what form of options and
arguments the command in question accepts.  This keeps the rest of the
command line to arguments neater.  It can wait.  It doesn't help here if
it's really that one option that has the rogue behaviour.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@cambridgesiliconradio.com>
Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070