🚀 go-pugleaf

A few weeks ago I asked the users whether we should change the syntax
for long options in GNU software to make them start with `--'.  124
responses favored the change, which would lead to syntax like `rm
--force *~'

Many of the users said that `--' was easier to type than the current
prefix `+'.

34 people preferred the current `+' prefix.

26 people asked for `-+', but I think `--' is better since it is
easier to type.

15 responses objected to `--' because of a supposed conflict with
the meaning of "end of options".  However, there is no conflict.  `--'
as an argument in itself would end the options; `--' followed by more
text would be a long option.  Currently `-' has a meaning as an
argument by itself and also introduces options, and this dual meaning
seems to be no problem.

About 8 people said we should support both `+' and `--', but this does
not seem like a lot of support.  We might support both for a while.

Some people said that long options should start with just `-', as in
`rm -force *~'.  But this does not accomplish compatibility with
POSIX, which requires programs to support combining single-letter
options in one argument.  (For exampe, `rm -rf ...'.)

Since people actually use these combinations, they are not just a
pedantic issue.  Besides, it is supposed to be possible to abbreviate
a long option, even with a single letter if the abbreviation is
unique.  So `rm --f' is short for `rm --force'.  This can't be done
in general if we use the same delimiter for both kinds of options.

A few people suggested other single character prefixes, but these have
the same POSIX problem as our current syntax and seem to offer no
advantage.

A few suggested `-' followed by some other character.  One of these is
promising: `-=', which is also easy to type.  I think I will therefore
make a new poll to ask people to choose between `-=' and `--'.