Re: is the standard "[<options>]", and not "[options]" or other?
- From
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
- Date
- May 24, 2018, 19:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGZ79kbFFPMrQZLcupbp1VUk3U-ww2kV707u-ugRKzYgq5A1BA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LFD.2.21.1805240738260.6091@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:45 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > but should the man pages be updated similarly? i can whip up a patch > for that unless someone wants to comment on this further.
Yes, please!
I think [<options>] are the best, as they are pedantically correct. [--options] is the worst, as there is not such thing as --options.
Thanks, Stefan