Christophe wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit : > > On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote: > >>> Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit : > >>>> I'm don't often use getopt just for the fact that I can't use > >>>> single-dash arguments like '-release'. DMD uses this syntax, and so to > >>>> other tools. It's not a big deal thanks to D's fantastic > >>>> string-manipulation abilities, so I just roll my own. All I need is a > >>>> switch(args) statement. > >>> > >>> I don't use getopt often either. That does not prevent me to wish getopt > >>> could become adequate to my needs... > >> > >> It already is because your needs are the empty set. > >> > >> Andrei > > > > On second thought what you said suggests your needs set may be nonempty, > > but said needs are not fulfilled by the current std.getopt. > > > > What exactly in std.getopt does not fulfill your needs? Would assembling > > the three variables into a structure help? > > > No, it wouldn't. > > The main reason why I don't want to use getopt is because the syntax "-o > output" (short-option, space, argument), and that is the main thing > I want to do. I think I posted about this in the thread.
This will be supported with my changes. I hope I can act soon on the feedback and clean up the pull request. > Enabling single-dash long option would be nice too. I suppose there is no technical to not support this kind of option. Though it does make configuring getopt more difficult and I don't see enough usage to add it. Why is this important to you? I see little benefit of -pedantic over --pedantic. If you believe this option is very important (because you want to save a single character), then you could provide the short alias -p. Is this just a matter of taste? Please convince me. Jens