Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:14:28 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: New getopt.c has different behavior -- should it? Message-ID: <20010923091428.C28032@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010922201928 DOT A21633 AT redhat DOT com> <08cd01c143f0$09b16fc0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <08cd01c143f0$09b16fc0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 03:24:36PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Faylor" >To: >Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:19 AM >Subject: New getopt.c has different behavior -- should it? > > >> The new getopt.c that I just added to winsup/cygwin/lib exhibts >different, >> more GNU-like behavior when it parses arguments. >> >... >> So, the question is, which way *should* it be? I'm inclined to leave >> it the way it is, since it seems to be more gnu-like but I don't >> want to cause people problems or generate unnecessary cygwin email >> traffic. > >This is one of the GNUism's that I'm very neutral on. As for the mailing >list, I think we can count on one hand - in unary - the number of folk >that aren't on the dev list, that run strace. So I don't think there >will be much traffic :}. (That is, as long as we update the FAQ, the >users guide and note in the release notes this change). I'm not worried about strace. I was just using that as an example. Any application that uses getopt is potentially affected. cgf