1 |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:58:18PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
3 |
> > William Hubbs wrote: |
4 |
> >> /etc/init.d/foo stop start |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> would no longer work the way you might expect because there would be no |
7 |
> >> way to tell whether start is a command or an argument to stop. |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> What are your thoughts about this change? |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > /etc/init.d/foo stop start |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > along with all other commands can work like before. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > /etc/init.d/foo stop -- start |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > can pass start as an argument to the stop command. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I like this approach, because its use of -- continues expected |
20 |
> commandline parsing behaviors from other commands, making it |
21 |
> intuitive. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I.e. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> touch -- -an-ugly-filename |
26 |
> ls -l -- -an-ugly-filename |
27 |
> rm -- -an-ugly-filename |
28 |
|
29 |
Theis still breaks backward compatibility though, e.g. |
30 |
|
31 |
/etc/init.d/foo command1 -- arg1 arg2 command2 |
32 |
|
33 |
has issues. |
34 |
|
35 |
The other approach, which is on the bug, still has this issue, e.g. |
36 |
|
37 |
/etc/init.d/foo command1 arg1 arg2 command2 arg3 arg4 command3 arg5 |
38 |
|
39 |
gets pretty ugly pretty quick. which arguments go with which commands is |
40 |
subject to interpretation. |
41 |
|
42 |
William |