The following reply was made to PR bin/32340; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Michael van Elst <mlelstv@serpens.de>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: gnats-admin@netbsd.org, netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/32340: rs doesn't parse options POSIXly
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:51:45 +0100

 On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 09:30:03PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR bin/32340; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: David Laight <david@l8s.co.uk>
 > To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: bin/32340: rs doesn't parse options POSIXly
 > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:55 +0000
 > 
 >  On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:05:03PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
 >  >  
 >  >  Yes, but it needs to be able to parse both -s and -s <arg> for example
 >  >  which you cannot do with getopt. What does posix say about this?
 >  
 >  Posix doesn't allow options to have optional arguments.
 
 My patch allows that the mandatory arguments are separated from the
 option character. I.e. -w 120 and -w120 remain valid. On the other
 hand it may cause a subsequent 'rows' argument to be treated as
 the argument of an option.
 
 So I guess that 'rs' should remain as is and the documentation
 should be fixed.
 
 Saying this: what about the undocumented options? Is there
 a history?
 
 
 -- 
                                 Michael van Elst
 Internet: mlelstv@serpens.de
                                 "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."