Norm wrote:
David Levine <levinedl(_at_)acm(_dot_)org> writes:
I wonder if, for 1.7, that simple syntax and semantics could be guaranteed?
That way, it would be possible for *proc commands to be always uptodate.
I'm not sure how. For example, if a new switch is added, its mere
existence wouldn't be enough to let a *proc writer know whether or
how to use it.
But for most *procs and most proc writers won't it usually be the case
that he doesn't want to use it per se, but just to know that it might
be there and how many arguments it takes so that he can ignore it?
I'm still now sure how "it would be possible for *proc commands to
be always uptodate." My only suggestion would be to parse the -help
output as you'd like, even though there's no guarantee that it won't
change some day. You can detect that, too.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers