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

[David Levine]

Norm wrote:

> David Levine <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> 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'm still now sure how "it would be possible for *proc commands to
be always uptodate."  My only suggestion would be to parse the -help
output as you'd like, even though there's no guarantee that it won't
change some day.  You can detect that, too.

David