On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:29:26PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:30:04 +0200 > Sorry, to change my mind on this;) But if we want to support only > '--force' and no short option for it this doesn't fit. I can leave out > the short option from the short option string, but the option struct for > `--force' needs an `val', and per code above, it will show in usage(). > > Is see two ways out. > 1) drop all short options form usage()
Yes, i'd vote for that, but... > 2) Also pass the short option string to usage and check for each `val' > if it is included in the short option string. At first I thought this was > a bit overkill, but thinking about it, it is more correct... ... this is also fine with me (and since you already have done the work... :-) > Untested... tested by me. No. It doesn't apply (whitespace damaged) and after i fixed that up, it did not compile. > What do you think? It does not work :-) -- Stefan Seyfried "Any ideas, John?" "Well, surrounding them's out." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Suspend-devel mailing list Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
