Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • nice, that makes sense, it is a little confusing though. So the last letter in a group is permitted to be a non-boolean? Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 4:45
  • 1
    This would only work if one of the grouped options required a parameter. Otherwise this would be ambiguous what followed. I would probably just decide at that point which non-boolean option is less used and require it to be specified outside the group (otherwise, good luck explainng that to the client). Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 8:24
  • Theoretically, you could freely intermix as many flags and options requiring parameters as you want, as long as you specify unambiguously what they mean. For example, you could specify that the arguments following the group are bound to the parameters in the order that they appear in the group. There are really two questions you have to ask: can I do it? (Can I find a unambiguous specification, such that the computer can understand it?) And should I do it? (Can I find an understandable, simple explanation such that the user can understand it?) Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 10:39
  • 1
    In other words, to use the exact words that you used in your question: "possible" and "advisable" are really two different questions. Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 10:40
  • Well theoretically, you could intermix as many flags and options requiring parameters as you want, ambiguous or otherwise. I think the goal here is to make it easy to use, and that has to take priority over any other decision here, regardless of feasibility. Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 13:25