From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Mahoney Subject: Re: Getopt improvements Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:35:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3E5E84B2.90708@suse.com> References: <3E5D26A2.7010804@suse.com> <20030227092551.C28643@namesys.com> <3E5E312C.50406@suse.com> <3E5E730C.7030804@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3E5E730C.7030804@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Oleg Drokin , Reiserfs List 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