A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1784 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                kre
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Issue 8 drafts
Issue ID:                   1784
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Error
Severity:                   Objection
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     New
Name:                       Robert Elz 
Organization:                
User Reference:              
Section:                    XCU 3 / getopts 
Page Number:                2955 - 2959 
Line Number:                98803  - 98966 
Final Accepted Text:         
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2023-10-22 06:14 UTC
Last Modified:              2023-11-13 18:09 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    getopts specification needs fixing (multiple issues)
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006568) shware_systems (reporter) - 2023-11-13 18:09
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1784#c6568 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I think originally the getopts utility interface assumed a user would
specify voluntarily all options be preceded by a <dash>, or <plus>, as
separate arguments, e.g. "-a -b" and not "-ab", and having multiple options
was more a syntax line documentation convenience only. There may have been
thoughts too on making it the shells responsibility to split apart multiple
options to this format before processing lines of a script so getopt
wouldn't need to be bothered, but it doesn't look like any shells ever
implemented this.

Then OPTIND as documented would specify which argument that had a leading
option <dash> was next to be referenced unambiguously. Without such munging
it is probably better to make OPTIND an opaque variable of unspecified
format, not numeric, that only getopt may reliably reference. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2023-10-22 06:14 kre            New Issue                                    
2023-10-22 06:14 kre            Name                      => Robert Elz      
2023-10-22 06:14 kre            Section                   => XCU 3 / getopts 
2023-10-22 06:14 kre            Page Number               => 2955 - 2959     
2023-10-22 06:14 kre            Line Number               => 98803  - 98966  
2023-10-22 06:40 kre            Tag Attached: issue8                         
2023-10-28 05:08 Don Cragun     Relationship added       related to 0001535  
2023-10-28 05:10 Don Cragun     Relationship added       related to 0001393  
2023-10-28 05:10 Don Cragun     Relationship added       parent of 0000351   
2023-10-28 05:19 kre            Note Added: 0006555                          
2023-10-28 05:36 kre            Note Added: 0006556                          
2023-10-28 06:25 Don Cragun     Note Added: 0006558                          
2023-10-28 06:27 Don Cragun     Relationship deleted     related to 0001535  
2023-10-28 06:28 Don Cragun     Relationship deleted     related to 0001393  
2023-10-28 06:34 Don Cragun     Relationship deleted     parent of 0000351   
2023-10-28 06:34 kre            Note Edited: 0006556                         
2023-11-13 18:09 shware_systems Note Added: 0006568                          
======================================================================


  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to