On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
On 02/18/2013 12:31 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> I don't understand your argument about "unique combination". The main issue
> is that people like me expect -h to work as a --help shortcut. They don't
> have a chance to know "--h" without reading the docs, so --h is not useful.
> And by the way - this --h is not documented.

We HAVE documented it.  We document that ALL long options can be
represented by an unambiguous prefix, so --h is an unambiguous prefix of
--help if there are no other long options beginning with h.

Is it a part of POSIX, RedHat or just usual man page for 'users'? Can you post a proof link here?
 
> The bar for adding new short options to the utilities is very high.
>>
>
> Sorry, but it is an argument. It will be interesting to know why though.

We are reluctant to burn a short option letter on any utility
standardized by POSIX unless there are other non-GNU implementations
that have also burned the same letter for the same purpose.  Prematurely
burning a short option hinders an effort to enhance the standard;
whereas existing practice is a strong argument for implementing
something to make it easier to use GNU as a drop-in replacement that
gives the user freedom over the existing implementation.

Do I understand it right that if OpenBSD implements "-h" - you'll copy?
And what if OpenBSD says that "unless GNU implementation"?

I don't get why GNU development and usability features should depend on non-GNU implementation?
What is the true reason?
 1. Liability dumping.
 2. No process to get statistical users preference.
 3. Fear that '-h' option can be used for other purpose for 'users' in future.
 4. Attempt to solve specific problem 'generic way'

> To confirm that argument we'd have to run the poll - if the users expect -h
> to work as --help by default.

Not generally.  The GNU coding standards mandate '--help', they do NOT
mandate '-h'.  More GNU users are used to '--help' than they are for any
short option name.

What does 'mandate' mean?
Is there any 'common sense' explanation for those standards?
In which year these 'mandations' were invented?

Your phrase about GNU users preference can not be backed up by any proof links, so it can not serve as an argument. That's why I proposed a poll. Nowadays GNU users are also Python and Ruby users, where they used to '-h' option, so your position is very dubious.
 
I am against adding -h as a short option without a lot more
justification than just a single user, since we have had so few requests
for a short option -h over the years.

There is a strong stereotype that core unix developers is a cast of conservative hackers, who are pretty hard to reach and communicate over user experience issues, so I suspect people don't even try. I am not speaking of you though. It is just an opinion I've heard from ordinary, not-advanced Linux users, who often don't know how to use 'find' from the command line.

"we have had a few" requests is also not an argument on the web. Archives are searchable, so if you refuse to implement it this time - next time people will search, read you answer, and decide to spend their time somewhere else.