Hi, Il giorno Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:14:50 -0500 "Galos, David" <galos...@students.rowan.edu> ha scritto:
> The only useful changes to nice here are the move of usage, which is > more stylistically consistent with the rest of the source, and the > proper POSIX return value. > > I was under the impression that this project includes ARGBEGIN/ARGEND > macros specifically to avoid getopt, so I see no reason to change to > it; it's more verbose anyway. > If you like it more with ARGBEGIN/ARGEND, I'm fine with it, I personally saw no reason to use ARGBEGIN and ARGEND macros when getopt is standard, tested and works just fine, but if that isn't the case, then I'll modify it accordingly. > The nice system call automatically clamps the specified value to a > reasonable number, and even within linux, acceptable values have > changed enough that including a clamp results in nice being less > stable, not more. > Actually coreutils performs the exact same clamping with the same value, but according to POSIX it should be unnecessary, so I agree, it can be removed. > The change to estrtol could be useful, but it could be better to > simply replace the atoi call with it, rather than introduce an extra > variable just to delay the exit until the end of the input loop. > > The point was not to delay the exit after the end of input, but to use the same path both for the default behavior and the behavior with a modified value, I find useful to have the minimum amount of logic done during argument parsing. Both approaches are pretty much the same anyway, so reverting the change is not a problem. -- Lorenzo Cogotti
