{"thread":{"id":"48562","subject":"is the standard \"[<options>]\", and not \"[options]\" or other?","startedAt":"2018-05-24T11:47:55Z","lastAt":"2018-05-24T19:15:12Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Robert P. J. Day","Stefan Beller"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"348421","messageId":"alpine.LFD.2.21.1805240738260.6091@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"48562","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"is the standard \"[<options>]\", and not \"[options]\" or other?","fromName":"Robert P. J. Day","fromEmail":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","sentAt":"2018-05-24T11:45:50Z","receivedAt":"2018-05-24T11:47:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/226084077?v=4"},"body":"\n  more pedantry -- was digging through \"man git-diff\" and noticed the\ninconsistency in how options are represented. first, in the synopsis,\nyou see \"[options]\":\n\n  SYNOPSIS\n    git diff [options] [<commit>] [--] [<path>...]\n    git diff [options] --cached [<commit>] [--] [<path>...]\n    git diff [options] <commit> <commit> [--] [<path>...]\n    git diff [options] <blob> <blob>\n    git diff [options] [--no-index] [--] <path> <path>\n\nwhile just below that in DESCRIPTION, it's all \"[--options]\":\n\n  git diff [--options] [--] [<path>...]\n           ^^^^^^^^^^^\n\na further search produced this from RelNotes/2.7.0.txt:\n\n  \"A couple of commands still showed \"[options]\" in their usage string\n   to note where options should come on their command line, but we\n   spell that \"[<options>]\" in most places these days.\"\n\nso, \"git diff -h\" does in fact use the allegedly encouraged syntax:\n\n  $ git diff -h\n  usage: git diff [<options>] [<commit> [<commit>]] [--] [<path>...]\n  $\n\nbut should the man pages be updated similarly? i can whip up a patch\nfor that unless someone wants to comment on this further.\n\nrday\n\n-- \n\n========================================================================\nRobert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA\n                  http://crashcourse.ca/dokuwiki\n\nTwitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday\nLinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday\n========================================================================\n"},{"id":"348468","messageId":"CAGZ79kbFFPMrQZLcupbp1VUk3U-ww2kV707u-ugRKzYgq5A1BA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48562","inReplyTo":"alpine.LFD.2.21.1805240738260.6091@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: is the standard \"[<options>]\", and not \"[options]\" or other?","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2018-05-24T19:15:03Z","receivedAt":"2018-05-24T19:15:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:45 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:\n\n>\n> but should the man pages be updated similarly? i can whip up a patch\n> for that unless someone wants to comment on this further.\n\nYes, please!\n\nI think [<options>] are the best, as they are pedantically correct.\n[--options] is the worst, as there is not such thing as --options.\n\nThanks,\nStefan\n"}]}