Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: long options
Message-ID: <1991May31.031802.1507@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 28 May 91 14:54:23 GMT
References: <1991May28.010441.13817@uunet.uu.net>
Sender: usenet@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 18
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)

> I recently heard that future POSIX standards will document `long options'
> similar to those used in the GNU file utilities.

> (3) What about tools that do not use getopt (like pg, chmod, tar and so on)?

How does getopt support long options? I would think that standardising on long
options would pretty much require a more sophisticated parser, such as Eric
Allman's "parseargs".
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"

[ The GNU getopt supports long options, via +long_option_name, I believe.
  It qualifies as existing practice, I suppose. --mod ]

Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 78