Re: [boost] Re: arguments parsing, wildcard matcher

From: Thomas Matelich (toms-mailing-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-16 22:58:30

"Gennadiy E. Rozental" wrote:

> --- In boost_at_y..., Glen Knowles <gknowles_at_c...> wrote:
> > Agreed.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nbecker_at_f... [mailto:nbecker_at_f...]
> > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 1:31 PM
> > To: boost_at_y...
> > Subject: Re: [boost] Re: arguments parsing, wildcard matcher
> >
> >
> > Personally, I would say that a modest percentange of old programs
> > support this type of syntax: (e.g., -xvf).  I don't think gnu getopt
> > handles this IIRC.
> >
> > But I think supporting without the option flag is just unreasonable,
> > and to me, not a requirement.
> >
>
> If it do not cost too much efforts I would implement it. Though I am
> personally never use this form of CLA.

You all just don't seem very unix-y.  Sticky options rule.  And getopt does support
it.

http://www.gnu.org/software/gengetopt/man_getopt.html

My personal favorite unix-y thing is the number of system utilities that are actually
one app which switches off of argv[0].

--
Thomas O Matelich
Senior Software Designer
Zetec, Inc.
matelich_at_[hidden]
tmatelich_at_[hidden]