Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/19/15:25:06
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 11:31:41AM -0700, Dario Alcocer wrote:
>On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 06:46:28PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:57:41AM -0700, Dario Alcocer wrote:
>> > In fact, I'd say that getopts is almost necessary for scripting,
>> > because its inclusion allows scripts to be on an equal footing with
>> > compiled programs, in that both can accept command line options. This
>> > means I can write small programs as shell scripts instead of as a
>> > compiled program; this is entirely consistent with traditional Unix
>> > programming philosophy, which encourages the use of shell scripts for
>> > small programs.
>>
>> There is that problem left that getopts isn't quite "plain old sh".
>> It's a System V extension while earlier version only had getopt
>> (which is available as external command).
>
>Excellent point. Upon further reflection, I see that my so-called Bourne
>shell 'compatible' scripts aren't really. I should be using the external
>getopt with the 'set -- `getopt`' idiom instead. I didn't realize I was
>relying on a non-standard feature.
>
>Thanks for your time. I ended up learning something new about shell
>programming.
Wow. Thanks for the reasonable response. This issue has cropped up
from time to time here and it always seems to revert to rancor. I
actually opened this message with some trepidation expecting some kind
of "Well, it seems to me..." type of response. Instead, this time we
had a nice reasonable discussion. Maybe that's because I didn't get
involved until now. :-)
Anyway, in my usual arbitrary fashion, I think this deserves a gold star.
I hope our intrepid gold star recorder is reading this.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -