Re: Getopt improvements

[Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>]

Hello!

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 07:15:54PM -0500, Jeff Mahoney wrote:

> 	Well, the more possible values a given multivalue option has, the more 
> values that need to be explicitly negated for a mutually exclusive 
> option. The descriptor lines get quite long with more than 2 options 
> when you need to specify every value you need to clear.

That's true. Not sure we can do something about that.

> 	I also got to thinking that perhaps the idea of being able to specify 
> multiple values for multivalue options isn't that great. If more than 
> one value is possible, the option should probably be a first level 
> option (ie: -ooption) rather than a second level option (ie: 
> -oname=value). With that in mind, I'd prefer to see my original 
> implementation used.

Well, we have two kinds of tails now, large and small.
So do you propose we should have:
notail
smalltail
largetail options?
please keep in mind that smalltail and largetail are mutually exclusive.

Bye,
    Oleg