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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk