Micah,
I'm going to join the last two posts into one reply to make
things easier.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 12:47:59AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 04:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:13:19AM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
The one I tried to link
On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 04:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I often had find alot of interesting (to me) material while digging
around on things like this. I would be fabulous if someone could
point me at a online source for the ANSI C or ISO C standards. It would
be cool to be able to site a
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:12:29AM -0800, Micah Cowan wrote:
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 00:35, Mark K. Kim wrote:
I think I now understand why GNU shuffles argv[]. But I don't need this
to be fully compatible with BSD's getopt; I just need it to behave in
reasonable manner. I'd like to hear
I often had find alot of interesting (to me) material while digging
around on things like this. I would be fabulous if someone could
point me at a online source for the ANSI C or ISO C standards. It would
be cool to be able to site a section for or against various theories.
(Well the
I tried using increment_optind() technique as Micah suggested, but I found
some technical limitation. I couldn't find any way to do it without
allocating memory in heap, and I couldn't free it safely without breaking
compatibility.
After reading Mike's [very detailed] posts :), I decided
Keywords: getopt, license issues, GPL, BSD, optind
Hey guys,
I mentioned some months ago about how I was using GPL's getopt library
in one of my company programs, and I was wondering about the GPL
distribution issues.[1]
Anyway, now I'm writing a software I want to release with BSD license,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:35:05AM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
Keywords: getopt, license issues, GPL, BSD, optind
Hey guys,
I mentioned some months ago about how I was using GPL's getopt library
in one of my company programs, and I was wondering about the GPL
distribution issues.[1]
The idea behind making libs GPL instead of LGPL is to give GPL programmers an
advantage over commercial programmers.
I think
On Thursday 28 March 2002 12:51 am, you wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:35:05AM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
Keywords: getopt, license issues, GPL, BSD, optind
The one I tried to link statically on Windows one time said it was GPL,
but according to Micah it's apparently LGPL with misdocumentation. :P
The reason I'm writing my own getopt is because I want static linkage.
Anyway, some options I'm thinking about:
1. Get rid of optind altogether.
2.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:13:19AM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
The one I tried to link statically on Windows one time said it was GPL,
but according to Micah it's apparently LGPL with misdocumentation. :P
The reason I'm writing my own getopt is because I want static linkage.
Anyway, some
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 00:35, Mark K. Kim wrote:
Keywords: getopt, license issues, GPL, BSD, optind
I implemented everything. optarg, opterr, and optopt work exactly
identical to GNU's getopt. However, optind is a little different because
my library doesn't reshuffle argv[] like GNU's
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, nbs wrote:
I don't have the LGPL in front of me, but I believe it says something
to the affect of:
* if you statically-link, you must also provide a version of the binary
that will dynamically-link, if the user wishes to do so
Really? What if the software were
On 28 Mar 2002, Micah Cowan wrote:
Permuting is probably the easiest way to go; but another alternative
would be to create another function, increment_optind(), instead of
doing ++optind. This function could then automatically skip options.
increment_optind() sounds excellent! Thanks!
13 matches
Mail list logo
