Re: Non-patch: Option arguments

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>]

On 27 Aug, you wrote:

> I've rewritten the option handling for builtins to improve the currently
> woeful handling of arguments to options.  As I didn't see fit to
> maintain compatibility with the current broken form, this changes
> everything involving options.  So the patch is huge and unless anyone
> screams I will commit it without posting it from home, where I've been
> writing it, in the next couple of days.

That all sounds good.

A couple of points which you may or may not have thought of.
Will there now be an easier way for precommand modifiers to take
options. We could particularly do with this for command where a couple
of the options (-v was it) should be accepted by the posix definition
but it would also be useful in a couple of other cases for bash/ksh
compatibility (exec perhaps). I forget what the problem was previously
with this.

We may need a bit of care over how `-' and `--' options are handled.
Taking Chet Ramey's recent message on -users, I was wondering whether
printf (to take a particular example but it may be applicable to others)
should ignore an initial `--' argument.

Oliver

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.