Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:16:10 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: getopt_long behavior Message-ID: <20030130011610.GC3603@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <29950-22003132922425749 AT M2W092 DOT mail2web DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29950-22003132922425749@M2W092.mail2web.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:42:57PM -0500, lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com wrote: >Giving the impression that ordering of arguments is not significant >is not a good idea in general. Although what you're looking for is >an extreme, the fact that you can generally interchange the order >of flags ( grep -i -c *.c vs grep -c -i *.c) does generate expectations >for all tools. This uniformity isn't going to be met by all tools (like >gcc and linker flags). So adding to the flexibility as you suggest would >only tend to increase the inquiries and problems folks currently have for >these kinds of tools. I don't think it's wise to look at making any tool >accept any argument in any order. I expect you'd find this isn't practical >anyway. But, that's just my opinion and it ain't worth much! ;-) I agree with your opinion but I don't mind adding an environment variable option to control the behavior. It will take a long time for this change to make it into every cygwin package which uses getopt, though. cgf -- 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/