Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:12:42 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing documented bug in env(1) Message-ID: <20010602041242.849893E33@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <200106020325.f523PK504364@guild.plethora.net>; from seebs@plethora.net on "Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:25:20 -0500"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Honestly, I don't care about this all that much. I'll let you and David debate this to your liking. If no consensus develops in the next few days, I'll just commit what I have now. (Obviously, if consensus does develop I'll go along with it.) Thanks, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes: > In message <20010602030518.E3CE63E32@bazooka.unixfreak.org>, Dima Dorfman writes: > >But this isn't terminating the end of a series of "options"; it's > >terminating a series of assignments, and since env(1) detemines > >whether an argument is an assignment or not by whether it has a '=' in > >it, it makes sense to use '==' as David suggests. > > No. The reason for "--" is that it's two of the *START* of an option. > env assignments don't *start* with =. > > The most consistent thing here is "-- to separate parts of a command line". > > >It's different from > >the others because it signifies the end of a different kind of > >"series". > > Sure, but the user doesn't necessarily care. Certainly, no one has ever > tried to use "==" to end any sequence of arguments anywhere; people use -- > to end subsequences of arguments all the time. > > -s > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010602041242.849893E33>