Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/12/03/12:06:25
It has again been some time since I've sent mail about the
getopt issues ;-) I too would like to see getopt_long()
allow parameter reordering, I'm fine with getopt()
preserving posix correctness. Is anyone currently taking
a look at this? What would be involved in the process?
Thanks,
Chris
David F wrote:
> First off, let me state the facts as I understand them:
...
> Ok, those are the facts as I understand them, if I am wrong about
> anything I trust that I will be corrected with expeditious and
> forthright meanness. :)
I haven't verified your facts, but they sound plausible.
> Additionally, I make the following suppositions:
>
> Argument permutation is desierable. Except, of course, when it breaks
> something.
I agree.
> It would be overly burdensome to explicitly enable/disable getopt()
> features on a case-by-case basis for getopt() using packages that are
> part of the Cygwin distribution.
Definitely, that wouldn't happen.
> And now for some discussion:
>
> I am not familiar with all the details of the evolution of
> getopt_long(), but I assume that argument permutation was present and
> enabled by default fairly early. I therefore assume that programs
> using getopt_long() are either compatible with argument permutatuin
> or have explicitly disabled it.
>
> So here's the idea: Leave argument permutation disabled by default for
> getopt() and enabled by default for getopt_long().
>
> This is a win if only because many if not most GNU programs use
> getopt_long(), especially those in the coreutils package.
>
> This would allow us the convenience of argument permutation for many
> programs while also maintaining standards compliance and
> compatibility. Right?
I don't know. If correct, that would be excellent.
> So it could work like this:
>
> getopt() would have argument permutation disabled by default and only
> enabled when POSIXLY_INCORRECT_GETOPT is defined and it is not
> explicitly disabled by the calling code.
>
> getopt_long() would have argument permutation enabled by default and
> disabled when POSIXLY_CORRECT is defined or it is explicitly disabled
> by the calling code.
>
> Does any of this make sense?
>
> (Note that I'm not asking anyone to implement this and I am familiar
> with the concept of "PTC". For now, I would just like to know what
> others think.)
I think it makes a lot of sense. It does require someone
to put in a fair
amount of time:
1) Resolving the uncertainties you mention.
2) Finding out what permutation broke in the first place.
3) Making the necessary tweaks
4) Verifying nothing is broken.
I think its a worthwhile cause, but I don't have the time
to dedicate to it
just right now.
Max.
--
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 -