> On 13. Nov 2019, at 16:59, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking, martijn@ is right.
Thanks for the elaborations and clarification.
I will adjust that with the next release.
>> is just not very readable and multiple arguments have always
>> non-optional predecessors anyways.
>
> Absolutely not. That is clearly not true, see the examples above.
I think we misunderstood here. I meant plain simple arguments and
not -options or key=value pairs. You can not distinguish between
plain arbitrary string arguments which can have any value without
respecting the order, so an predecessor is necessary (non-optional)
in my example for the limit:
filter-clamav “value1"
is “value1" the limit or the address? By design it is defined to be
the address, because first argument. Second argument is limit and
limit can never be without (even empty “") first address argument
predecessor, because the string values are not distinguishable from
each other, except through argument position.
That might be poor design, in particular with more arguments and
depending on the argument intentions. But this is very simple to
implement (in most languages) and I don’t plan to add any further
arguments anyways. In fact, I’m thinking of getting rid of the
second argument by setting a reasonable default limit ;)
> Admittedly, this is a fringe issue for a port and shouldn't
> hinder importing.
Yes, I really not expected to defend my choice of language or
the 120 lines of code in a review here, before importing ;)
>> But I'm not a manpage syntax expert,
>> maybe Ingo or jmc can chime in and correct me to be wrong here.
>
> At your service. ;-)
Thanks!!!
