AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080418150018.1e5ef09e@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<dl-Cougar@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E097CC8BC@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:00:36 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
Cc: "dl-Cougar" <dl-Cougar@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: 23441 	[Cougar] domain add / domain modify allow repeated
 options
Message-ID: <20080418150036.38ebedfa@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E097CC8BC@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E097CC8BC@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:36:59 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have seen a few similar defects filed where the complain is that an
> option can be specified multiple times. Who is coming up with those
> rules and where are these rules specified? Allowing specifying the
> same option multiple times is quite common practice at least in Linux
> and in Windows, try almost any of utilities (don't know about Mac,
> but who cares about them anyway). The multiple options are usually
> resolved by the last one taking precedence. It is convenient as well.
> If you are typing a long command string, and make a mistake in the
> beginning you can simply enter an option again.

These are P3 or lower defects, and as such will never be fixed, so
don't worry about it.  OK, now that we've all had a good nervous laugh
over that joke, I think I agree with you at least to the extent that if
they are bugs at all, they don't rise above a P4 or so.  But yes, I
don't think there is anything inherently incorrect about accepting
options multiple times.  There might be specific situations where it's
a bad idea, but there just as easily might be certain situations where
it's necessary, for instance, if they are positionally meaningful with
respect to other arguments.