Re: Getopt improvements

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Jeff Mahoney wrote:

> 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.

It clears them without failing, yes?  Not sure I like that.

> What I don't like is how it makes the descriptor definition for each 
> argument pretty long and really ugly. 

An example?

>
>
>     -Jeff
>


-- 
Hans