Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<200302280403.h1S43aU07999@guild.plethora.net>
From:	seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach)
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To:	seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach)
Subject:	getopts, POSIX, and the sh(1) man page
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:03:36 -0600

Shouldn't the sh(1) man page mention the lack of getopts, rather than
documenting a feature which apparently got taken out?

For that matter, it seems to me that taking out a core POSIX feature is not
a very good way to make a shell smaller.  getopts(1) was standardized because
it's VERY USEFUL.  A script that calls #!/bin/sh can, on any POSIX system,
expect getopts(1) to be available.  This is a portability problem; requiring
a user to ask for bash to get a standard POSIX feature is misleading at
best.  The implementation, which *did* exist at one point, can't have been
all *THAT* big.  Or maybe it should just get added to /bin.  Looking at the
code in another copy of ash, this is just plain not a big enough chunk of
code to be worth taking out.

-s

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -