Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!duke!romeo!ndd
From: ndd@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Ned D. Danieley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: command line parsing under X11
Keywords: X11
Message-ID: <13352@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 89 21:52:21 GMT
Sender: news@duke.cs.duke.edu
Lines: 30

In section 10.11.3, Parsing Command Line Options (X11R2 manual),
it says (very last line):

"When parsing the command line, any unique unambiguous abbreviation
for an option name in the table is considered a match for the option."

Which means if you have a program that wants to use -d as an option,
you have to tell Xtinitialize about it, or X will assume that it
is the -display option. I would like to argue that X should only
match the literal name of the option: I have a basic set of routines
that are used by several different programs, each of which have
different options. Obviously, I can handle this problem, but I'm
not sure that the convenience of substring matching is worth the
extra effort. I would be interested in people's comments, pro and
con, email or posted.

Now, if we are going to keep this method of argument parsing, I
would like to suggest that it be extended. Currently, XrmParseCommand
can handle at most one argument after an option, and, of course,
I have some options that take two or more arguments. I realize
that dealing with an arbitrary number of arguments will be messy,
but I'm really going to resent having to tell X about my options
AND change them to fit its preconceived notions. Any comments about
this 'feature'?

Ned Danieley (ndd@sunbar.mc.duke.edu)
Basic Arrhythmia Laboratory
Box 3140, Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC  27710
(919) 684-6807 or 684-6942