Re: [Nmh-workers] "-help" arguments

[norm]

David Levine <address@hidden> writes:
>Norm wrote:
>
>> I observe that, ignoring all lines not beginning with exactly two ' '
>> characters, the outputs of nmh's commands' -help, seem to be extremely
>> regular and simple.
>
>Yes, because they're generated from the switch definitions in the code
>of each program.
>
>> I wonder if, for 1.7, that simple syntax and semantics could be guaranteed?
>> That way, it would be possible for *proc commands to be always uptodate.
>
>I'm not sure how.  For example, if a new switch is added, its mere
>existence wouldn't be enough to let a *proc writer know whether or
>how to use it.

But for most *procs and most proc writers won't it usually be the case
that he doesn't want to use it per se, but just to know that it might
be there and how many arguments it takes so that he can ignore it?

I admit that I've written exactly one proc, a postproc. But for it, that
would be the case.

    Norman Shapiro