Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:8748 comp.unix.wizards:7486
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!trane!gold
From: gold@trane.UUCP (Michael Gold)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <363@trane.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 88 01:20:04 GMT
References: <2517@geac.UUCP>
Organization: Aurora Systems San Francisco, California
Lines: 28

From article <2517@geac.UUCP>, by daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown):
>   I did a parser with static control tables, and admit I like the
> scanf-style ones better.  Feel free to post...

I agree that the 'scanf' paradigm is neater, assuming a fairly small
set of options.  For programs with more complex command lines, where the
format string would overflow a line of source code and be otherwise
unwieldy, I prefer the static data structure.  The ideal solution would
be a package that accepts either interface at the user's preference.
I cite the various flavors of 'exec*(2)' as precedent.  Or does that
raise red flags on account of unnecessary multiplicity??

Anyway, I'd propose three more requirements for this package:

1)	Capability of handling multi-character flags,

2)	Acceptance of arguments to flags that may or may not be
	appended to the flag, as in the -I and -o flags of most 'cc's
	respectively, and

3)	Positional independence of the tokens, except for arguments bound
	to particular flags.

I sense from the volume and quality of this discussion that improving
getopt() is both desirable and non-trivial.  Let's keep at it.

--------
Michael Gold / (415) 780-4903 / {ihnp4,ames,sun,pyramid,...}!pacbell!trane!gold