getopt(3) posting

[Bill Crews]

> > Getopt is a good idea, folks.
> > 	-- it provides consistent syntax error messages
> > 	-- most programmers don't handle bizarre flag/argument combinations;
> > 		getopt takes care of that problem.
> > 	-- simplifies the effort of writing a command interface to the
> > 		copying of a while loop from your last program and editing
> > 		a couple of lines.
> 
> 	Well, the program I provided does all these things too, and allows you
> to handle multiple sets of options, variant option flags, and so on.
> 
> > Keith Bostic
> 
> Peter da Silva

If you can get your getopt replacement approved by the ANSI Unix standards
committee, fine.  If it becomes popular and widely offered and used, fine.
Otherwise, all you are doing is providing yet another clever program whose
user interface is different from others in a fundamental way.  Any standard
function by definition limits one, but the existence of a standard has value
too, which must be weighed against the value of the proliferation of
cleverness.  I am not studied enough to have an opinion as to whether getopt
is currently comprehensive or flexible enough.  If it can be made more flexible
without leaving a user who hasn't used a given command before totally in the
dark as to how it might work, then let's do it, but let's do it soon and
then batten down the hatches, so we can have some consistency.  And more than
anything else, PLEASE support whatever standard the committee adopts by USING
whatever form of getopt is blessed!
-- 
	- bc -

..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc  (512) 835-2266