Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9210 comp.unix.wizards:7734
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <7668@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 12 Apr 88 14:21:08 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <143@gsg.UUCP> <21426@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <866@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <866@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>still freakish:  '?' is the value that getopt() returns to its caller to
>say that something went wrong (but note that this behaviour CAN be disabled
>by the caller, so it is NOT guaranteed in all programs that use getopt).

The only thing that can be disabled is the automatic error message
produced by getopt() itself.  An invalid flag is still returned as
a '?' value by getopt().  Of course the application programmer may
have chosen to be less than helpful in error situations.  Nothing
in any getopt()-like design can help this.