anm.mlist01 at iname.com
Wed Apr 7 10:58:39 CEST 1999
>>>>> "wk" == Werner Koch <wk at isil.d.shuttle.de> writes:
wk> Hi, someone raised the question, whether to change the
wk> commandline syntax, so that it is more like tar(1) or ps(1). I
wk> have no POSIX specs so I can't decide whether this is a good
wk> idea. Recent versions of ps(1) etc give you a warning, that the
wk> use of - is depreciated.
wk> Example of a new syntax:
wk> $ gpg -v sign 0x12345678 instead of $ gpg -v --sign 0x12345678
I for one dislike this approach. It does take some getting used, (the
--cmd), but it is the correct way. tar(1) is the way it is for
historic reasons, and ps(1), well it just plain different on most
systems, (hp/us != solaris != irix != aix != osf/1, and the linux
version tries to be all things to all folks).
So since these are bad role models, stick with the GNU with POSIX
overtones command syntax. I think that those that want special syntax
can write wrappers to suite there needs. This is what most GPG
intergration devlopers do anyway to get GPG to look like PGP ot be
callable from there MUA etc.
More information about the Gnupg-devel