Re: Getopt improvements

[Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>]

Hans Reiser wrote:
> Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> 
>>
>>     Oleg -
>>         I like the ability to specify the bits that should be cleared. 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by that, forgive me for not reading closely
>> It's more flexible than my solution, and doesn't involve looping after 
>> each option. 
> 
> 
> Doesn't yours do a better job of handling "no"?

	For the simple cases (which also happen to be all we have right now), 
yes, I think that my implementation is cleaner. It allows the simple use 
of mutually exclusive options, through the "no" prefix, and clearing of 
the other bits in a multivalue option.  For now, that's all we need - 
and it's a valid argument for using my code. However, what I like about 
Oleg's implementation is that if you have an option that excludes other 
options (even when it's not multivalue), it can clear those bits as 
well. What I don't like is how it makes the descriptor definition for 
each argument pretty long and really ugly.

	-Jeff

-- 
jeffm@suse.com
jeffm@csh.rit.edu