Re: [hackers] [slock] No need for usage() || FRIGN

From: Markus Teich <>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:47:30 +0100

Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:35:11AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> > My considerations here were that it was quite arbitrary not to document -h,
> > given we "allow" a command to be passed to slock as second + further
> > arguments. However, I respect your stances on this and will revert it, but
> > also document -h in the manpage.
> The right way to do this is to consider -h an invalid option. For invalid
> options always print usage.


then we would have to assume users don't have *any* binary starting with a `-`
that they might want to run after locking, but I can still live with that.

Received on Mon Feb 15 2016 - 11:47:30 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Feb 15 2016 - 11:48:35 CET