Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Remko Lodder wrote:
Where do we stop? Should we add long options to all
/usr/bin utilities? Why stop at /usr/bin, let's add
long options to /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin, /rescue, etc.
That is not your call. If a maintainer wants to add all options he can
consider, he is free to do so. Though others might not appreciate that
as much as he does. It can be discussed ofcourse, but to a certain
extend.
It's not your call either. We have style(9), which says:
For consistency, getopt(3) should be used to parse options. Options
should be sorted in the getopt(3) call and the switch statement,
unless
parts of the switch cascade. Elements in a switch statement that
cascade
should have a FALLTHROUGH comment. Numerical arguments should be
checked
for accuracy. Code that cannot be reached should have a NOTREACHED
com-
ment.
There is nothing about getopt_long(3) being acceptable
replacement/addition to the getopt(3).
getopt(3) is implemented, and it's expanded by getopt_long(3) in this
case. The requirement is fullfilled and made more readable (in my
eyes) then before.
Not everyone agrees, too bad, the world is not perfect :-).
(I'll end discussing this with this email).
Cheers,
remko
--
/"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\ / Remko Lodder | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X http://www.evilcoder.org/ |
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
