From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Tom Tromey , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Inferior command line arguments Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:42:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010928154217.A17406@nevyn.them.org> References: <87zo7gq7gb.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3BB4C04D.22C3DAB5@cygnus.com> <877kuji2b7.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <20010928145938.A13638@nevyn.them.org> <3BB4CF12.3020900@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00431.html On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:27:14PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Unfortunatly ``--'' already has certain semantics. Detecting it > wouldn't be sufficient. Consider things like: > > --argument-expected -- > -- --poor-programe-name-choice --poor-core-file-choice > gdb --args -- gdb --args -- program arg arg > > Tom's --args -- is somewhat grotesque but at least it is well defined. > Something like: > > gdb --- gdb --- program arg arg > > might be possible but it is really sugar for ``--args --''. As much as I'd prefer '--' (those objections, while completely correct, could be overcome with a bit of work; I admit I hadn't thought of them), I'd rather see '---' than --args --, because it doesn't allow for the confusing semantics of '--args' without the '--'. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer