No, I think Jonathan wasn't arguing with the idea that the command
comes before any options or arguments. The command is neither an
option nor an argument. In other words:
svn [<command>] [<option|argument> ...]
Re: Greg Hudson's point that there are a couple of different standards
here: I rolled on the floor laughing and crying at the same time. :-)
But seriously, I think we should (eventually if not immediately)
support the more flexible GNU way, because it does result in increased
convenience for the user, and is no more ambiguous than the other way.
[By the way, CVS, to my surprise, requires that the command options
come before command arguments.]
-K
Bruce Korb <bkorb@sco.COM> writes:
> That leaves you with a rather interesting dilemma:
>
> svn -x foo bar
>
> Which is the subcommand, "foo" or "bar"?
> Well, it depends. For the "foo" subcommand, -x happens to
> require an argument, but for the "bar" subcommand, it does
> not. Or, was that the other way around? In any event,
> without knowing which is the subcommand, you cannot know
> how to handle the -x flag option. Unless, of course, all
> options apply to all subcommands and the subcommand processing
> code has to figure out what happened. To this, *I* say, "No." :-)
> Way too hard. ``svn'' + ``<subcommand>'' is the command.
> Or, rather, ``<subcommand>'' is the command within the svn's
> command name space, if you like.
>
> - Bruce
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:11 2006