Hi, this was discussed months ago, I also raised this briefly at Sharkfest - but I changed my mind since then.
>> Guy Harris skrev 2013-04-09 00:32: >>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Anders Broman <a.bro...@bredband.net> wrote: >>> I think we have getopt_long already >>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=41926 >> We do, so we have it available on both platforms that have it (most >> UN*Xes, these days) and platforms that don't (Windows, which has neither >> getopt() nor getopt_long(), and perhaps some current UN*Xes and older >> versions of other UN*Xes). We don't have getopt_long() on windows at the moment. But we're 99% there. All it takes is copying another 10 lines from glibc. It looks like getopt() and getopt_long() share a lot of helper functions. So we're not pulling in a lot of new code if we provide a getopt_long() implementation on windows. >>We're not using it, however; did you check that in for future use, and >>did you have any future use in mind? >I think it was added in conjunction with looking at >https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2473 at the time I >think there were discussion about using long options for various stuff. >I just added it so we would have all options open as I didn't quite like >the glib implementation for some reason I don't quite remember now. Lately, I played a bit more with the goptions. Changing completely from getopt() to goptions seems a lot of work for no real benefit (unless we do this everywhere where getopt() is used at the moment). I tried to use goptions only for the long opts and leave getopt() in place for the existing options. They don't co-exist well, there's always a way to produce strange errors. In short: Contrary to what I said at sharkfest, I believe that getopt_long() is the way to go. Unless anyone protests, I'll make the required changes and start using it. Best regards, Martin ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe