Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:44:52AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> This does not invalidate the proposal "do something at link time to
>> force POSIXLY_CORRECT if necessary for this app".
>
> I don't understand what it has to do with anything. Your proposed
> change (which
Christopher Faylor wrote:
He didn't say "cygwin kernel". He said "cygwin suite", as in suite
of programs. If someone wants a cygwin distribution which uses
non-posix options, they will have to recompile and rebuild the
whole cygwin release.
Yes, you are correct. I thought the original poster
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:19:23AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:29:47PM -0500, Chris Morgan wrote:
>>>I orginally posted this message some time ago. Having all of
>>>the cygwin tools lacking the ability to accept arguments in
>>>arbirtary ord
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:29:47PM -0500, Chris Morgan wrote:
I orginally posted this message some time ago. Having all of
the cygwin tools lacking the ability to accept arguments in
arbirtary order makes it more difficult to use them(I often do
grep "string" *.c and
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:39:20 -0500 Christopher Faylor wrote:
> No, it wouldn't suggest that at all. Did you try the grep that I
> suggested? getopt isn't exported from cygwin1.dll. It only lives in
> libcygwin.a.
> I don't know why the original designers of cygwin decided to do things
> this w
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:44:52AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>This does not invalidate the proposal "do something at link time to force
>POSIXLY_CORRECT if necessary for this app".
I don't understand what it has to do with anything. Your proposed
change (which I've already made) will still work.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:34:47AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> And for an answer to the riddle of why this won't immediately do
>>> what you want, try this in the winsup/cygwin directory:
>>>
>>> grep -i getopt cygwin.din
>>>
>>> (Remembe
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:34:47AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:45:06PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> would you accept a patch making getopt respond to a
>>> "POSIXLY_INCORRECT_GETOPT" envvar?
>>
>> I'll make the change but it won't have the eff
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:45:06PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> would you accept a patch making getopt respond to a
>> "POSIXLY_INCORRECT_GETOPT" envvar?
>
> I'll make the change but it won't have the effect you think it will.
> I guarantee it. I will even make a snapsh
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:42:57PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Giving the impression that ordering of arguments is not significant
>is not a good idea in general. Although what you're looking for is
>an extreme, the fact that you can generally interchange the order
>of flags ( grep -i -c *.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:45:06PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>would you accept a patch making getopt respond to a
>"POSIXLY_INCORRECT_GETOPT" envvar?
I'll make the change but it won't have the effect you think it will.
I guarantee it. I will even make a snapshot and then you can watch
in horror a
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:29:47PM -0500, Chris Morgan wrote:
>I orginally posted this message some time ago. Having all of
>the cygwin tools lacking the ability to accept arguments in
>arbirtary order makes it more difficult to use them(I often do
>grep "string" *.c and then rerun with -i at the
Chris Morgan wrote:
> I've never used a flavor of linux that didn't support
> arguments and options in arbitrary(within reason) order. I
> think if you started forcing users to enter options in a
> strict order you would be met with considerable resistance as
> this restriction is unnecessary. I'
l message
>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:42:57 -0500
>From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: getopt_long behavior
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Giving the impression that ordering of arguments is not
significant
>is not a g
Chris Morgan wrote:
> I orginally posted this message some time ago. Having all of
> the cygwin tools lacking the ability to accept arguments in
> arbirtary order makes it more difficult to use them(I often do
> grep "string" *.c and then rerun with -i at the end). Is
> there anyway to get around
tions
on behavior. I can only offer the consolation that at least since
Cygwin is open-source, you have the option to build it the way you
want it, if you want it bad enough. ;-)
Larry
Original Message:
-
From: Chris Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:29:47 -0500
To
I orginally posted this message some time ago. Having all of
the cygwin tools lacking the ability to accept arguments in
arbirtary order makes it more difficult to use them(I often do
grep "string" *.c and then rerun with -i at the end). Is
there anyway to get around this without recompiling the
17 matches
Mail list logo
