Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:9573 comp.unix.wizards:7985
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!fxgrp!ljz
From: ljz@fxgrp.fx.com (Lloyd Zusman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: command line options
Message-ID: <283@fxgrp.UUCP>
Date: 23 Apr 88 19:21:22 GMT
References: <2414@zyx.UUCP> <8039@elsie.UUCP> <7628@brl-smoke.ARPA> <143@gsg.UUCP> <4751@chinet.UUCP> <1073@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Sender: news@fxgrp.UUCP
Reply-To: ljz@fx.com (Lloyd Zusman)
Organization: Master Byte Software, Los Gatos, California
Lines: 19

Why is it that some of you are so fervently defending how '-?' is
currently handled in getopt()?  Are you trying to imply that getopt()
is perfect and nothing better can ever be invented, and that those who
try to suggest that something better might be possible are worthy of
nothing more than derision and scorn?  It sure seems that some of you
feel this way.

What if getopt() were to return '?' as an error UNLESS some global
variable (how 'bout "getoptBADCH"?) is set to some other value?
Then, those of us who believe that getopt() is perfect can continue
to use it as is, and those of us who don't like the '?' behavior
can do something different.

Sheesh!

--
    Lloyd Zusman
    Master Byte Software
    Los Gatos, California		Internet:   ljz@fx.com
    "We take things well in hand."	UUCP:	    ...!ames!fxgrp!ljz