Re: enable argument permutation by default for getopt_long() and not getopt() [PATCH] (was Re: getopt() musings)

David Fritz wrote: I have moved this discussion to cygwin-patches as it seemed appropriate. Oops. I meant to anyway. Sorry. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html

enable argument permutation by default for getopt_long() and not getopt() [PATCH] (was Re: getopt() musings)

I have moved this discussion to cygwin-patches as it seemed appropriate. For reference, the original thread is here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2003-11/msg00865.html Max Bowsher wrote: > It does require someone to put in a fair amount of time: > > 1) Resolving the uncertainties you me

Re: getopt() musings

It has again been some time since I've sent mail about the getopt issues ;-) I too would like to see getopt_long() allow parameter reordering, I'm fine with getopt() preserving posix correctness. Is anyone currently taking a look at this? What would be involved in the process? Thanks, Chris

Re: getopt() musings

David F wrote: > First off, let me state the facts as I understand them: ... > Ok, those are the facts as I understand them, if I am wrong about > anything I trust that I will be corrected with expeditious and > forthright meanness. :) I haven't verified your facts, but they sound plausible. > Ad