On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:30:31PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, March 24, 2018 09:59:44 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > And given the defensiveness surrounding std.getopt, my conclusion > > can only be: dump std.getopt, roll my own. It's sad, since in > > general Phobos design tends to be superior to its C++ counterparts. > > But we then have warts like std.getopt that people refuse to > > acknowledge is a problem. So be it. [...] > As for defensiveness, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. The > main point was that given how often getopt gets called in a program, > improving its Big-O complexity isn't worth it, but there have been a > number of improvements to getopt over the years, so it's not like > we're not allowed to improve it. It's just that improving its Big-O > complexity is kind of pointless. In any case, as Andrei said, if a new > option can be added to fix your use case, then that shouldn't be a > problem, though I have no clue how much of a pain that will be to > implement, particularly since std.getopt isn't exactly simple. [...]
OK, the part about defensiveness may be just my overreaction. I apologize. But yeah, I glanced at the code, and don't see any easy way to implement what Andrei agreed with. It's just too much work for something I could just write for myself in a much shorter time. I guess I'll just log an enhancement request in bugzilla and leave it at that. T -- It always amuses me that Windows has a Safe Mode during bootup. Does that mean that Windows is normally unsafe?