This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: getopt() musings
- From: "Chris Morgan" <cmorgan at alum dot wpi dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:05:11 -0500
- Subject: Re: getopt() musings
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?
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
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
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
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.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html