Re: unrecognized option '--help
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unrecognized option '--help |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20675.1432259996@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: unrecognized option '--help (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: unrecognized option '--help
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2015-05-21 21:44:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the only thing that would do what you wanted would be to >> recognize *any* argv element matching "--help" as a help request. >> Maybe that's all right, but I'm a tad worried about the possibility >> of false positives. Are we so sure that that string could never be >> a database name, table name, etc? > I'm not following. Why does checking for --help/-? in the normal > getopt_long call require that? In many, but not all, utilities only > argv[1] is checked... As I recall, Alvaro's argument for this was "I typed multiple words of a command and then want to check syntax, so I add --help to the end of what I'd already typed and hit return, with the idea of recalling the command and deleting the --help off the end so I don't have to retype what I already entered." This use-case is only going to work reliably if --help is recognized regardless of what's in front of it. Otherwise, if you're right in suspecting that you got something wrong, getopt parsing will fail before it gets to your --help --- and what it will print is "please use --help", which is exactly the symptom being complained of here. As I said, maybe that's okay. It'd certainly be 99.99% okay ... but the other hundredth of a percent could be pretty painful. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: