Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 11 February 2012 16:02, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:39:35PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> It's quite consistent in most suckless tools actually. One difference >> I stumbled upon is exactly stest, because it uses the clunky getopt() >> approach and I really wonder why it

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:39:35PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > It's quite consistent in most suckless tools actually. One difference > I stumbled upon is exactly stest, because it uses the clunky getopt() > approach and I really wonder why it needs so many flags. sbase uses getopt and I suspect

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 11 February 2012 14:04, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> However the real point is that the getopt() style or ARGBEGIN crap >> enables and encourages the developer to introduce a bad command flag >> interface. Because those approaches hide the utter complexity

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Christoph Lohmann
Hello. Rob wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 02:04:43PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote: >> Users will rather be irritated, if the commandline argument hand- >> ling is different in every application. They then *have* to read >> the sourcecode for finding out how arguments are handled. > > What Ans

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Rob
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 02:04:43PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote: > Hello. > > Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > If you can write a simple for() loop to process your command line > > flags, your interface can't be that hard to grasp for the user. > > Otherwise he will look up the weirdo flags quite often

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Christoph Lohmann
Hello. Anselm R Garbe wrote: > However the real point is that the getopt() style or ARGBEGIN crap > enables and encourages the developer to introduce a bad command flag > interface. Because those approaches hide the utter complexity > involved, the developer tends to care less here. This is my mai

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 11 February 2012 01:34, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > Somebody claiming to be Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> >> I heavily dislike the fact that dmenu now contains a reference to >> getopt(). Not exactly dmenu, but stest. >> >> Can we please remove the getopt() dependency? > > > What does the community

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-11 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 10 February 2012 01:33, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > On 9 February 2012 19:20, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> Can we please remove the getopt() dependency? > > If someone writes an ARGBEGIN-style flag parser with clustering, > that's fine. Seems a bit of a waste considering getopt is POSIX, but > neve

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-10 Thread Stephen Paul Weber
Somebody claiming to be Anselm R Garbe wrote: I heavily dislike the fact that dmenu now contains a reference to getopt(). Not exactly dmenu, but stest. Can we please remove the getopt() dependency? What does the community have against getopt() ? It certainly beats the pants off of writing yo

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-10 Thread Bert Münnich
On 10.02.12, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > On 9 February 2012 19:20, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > Can we please remove the getopt() dependency? > > If someone writes an ARGBEGIN-style flag parser with clustering, > that's fine. Seems a bit of a waste considering getopt is POSIX, but > never mind. Ther

Re: [dev] stest review

2012-02-09 Thread Connor Lane Smith
On 9 February 2012 19:20, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Can we please remove the getopt() dependency? If someone writes an ARGBEGIN-style flag parser with clustering, that's fine. Seems a bit of a waste considering getopt is POSIX, but never mind. cls

[dev] stest review

2012-02-09 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi there, I heavily dislike the fact that dmenu now contains a reference to getopt(). Not exactly dmenu, but stest. Can we please remove the getopt() dependency? Thanks, Anselm