Re: [boost] Re: Command line syntaxes

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-23 10:32:18

Schoenborn, Oliver wrote:
> > I'm not clear on the need to distinguish between long and short
> > option names.  What I would have is a 'minimum abbreviation length'
> > setting, whereby you must have at least x unambiguous letters of the
> > option name for it to be recognised.
>
> Sorry if this has already been explicitly ruled out, but is there a reason
> for not distinguishing between long and short arguments by using - for
> short and -- for long?  

I find it the best syntax. In fact, this is what you get with the predefined 
"unix" style. However, people was asking for long options names with a single 
dash/slash. 

- Volodya