Re: [PATCH] stop run-time option processing after "--"

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 08:43:52 +0100 Peter Bex <peter@more-magic.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:40:18AM +0100, felix.winkelmann@bevuta.com wrote:
>> > Of course.  In fact, I think it would make more sense to simply tell the
>> > runtime options parser to stop after the first non-"-:"-prefixed
>> > argument.  That makes runtime argument stuffing harder and allows it
>> > to play nice with _any_ option parser, and makes the "--" behaviour
>> > automatically work if the program already handles getopt-style options.
>> 
>> That's another idea. Backwards compatibility is from now on
>> fucked anyway, so let's try to find somethin simple and sensible.
>
> Then we should do both.  I.e., have -: to explicitly tell it to stop
> parsing (and have that dropped from the command-line-options) and
> stop at the first argument.  The -: would be in situations where
> a script just passes on all its arguments, like
>
> ./my-program -: "$@"

What should the behavior of executables be in case they are compiled
with the runtime options parser disabled (e.g.,
-disable-runtime-options, as per Felix' previous patch)?

All the best.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario