3 ms·
At a guess, it isn't actually the symlinks, it's the argument parsing they're trying to simplify. Old programs have stupidly complex argument parsing. If you
by saalweachter 4y ago
At a guess, it isn't actually the symlinks, it's the argument parsing they're trying to simplify.
Old programs have stupidly complex argument parsing. If you can pass your arguments as "cmd foo bar path", "cmd -f bar path", "cmd -fbar path", "cmd path --foo=bar" or "fcmd bar path" and "cmdf path bar", it can be really convenient for users who can structure their commands in the way that makes the most sense for them.
But it can be really frustrating to maintainers who are maintaining -- and testing! -- a thousand lines of bespoke argument parsing for a ten line function.
It's really, really tempting to define a simple syntax for argument parsing, turn it into a library, and reduce your pile of shell commands to a few lines of argument configuration and a function call.
- masklinn 4y ago> At a guess, it isn't actually the symlinks, it's the argument parsing they're trying to simplify. There’s no parsing. GNU’s egrep and fgrep are trivial shell scripts: #!/bin/sh exec grep -E "$@"
- saalweachter 4y agoThen that's a real jerk-ass move.