Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!jsq
From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: a bit more on getopt
Message-ID: <2401@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 21:32:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2401
Posted: Thu Jul 18 21:32:22 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 20:17:42 EDT
References: <251@mcc-db.UUCP> <2365@ut-sally.UUCP> <2392@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 33
Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 85 20:29:59 EDT
From: Keith Bostic <seismo!keith>
To: /dev/null
Subject: Re: getopt(3) (again...)
Cc: pegasus!hansen, ut-sally!std-unix

> Actually, the recently posted rewrite by Rich Salz is closer to AT&T's code
> than is yours and his is more accurate.

You're right, I apologize.  I totally missed the USG use of opterr and have
updated my code appropriately.  I am currently trying to get 4.3 to use
the correct code.

> Actually this is important in some applications which do not already use
> stdio and do not wish to load in the 10k or so overhead that using stdio
> incurs. AT&T's code does not use stdio in getopt(3).

Not true.  The size difference between:

	main() { puts("foo"); }
and
	main() { write(0,"foo",3); }

is exactly zero.

> In fact, why go with yours or Rich's version at all and not use the
> public-domain version that AT&T published at January's Uni-Forum in Dallas?
> That would have gotten rid of all thought of incompatiblity!

Amen, I didn't know about it in January or I would have said something when
Berkeley asked to use mine.

--keith