Re: Getopt improvements

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Oleg Drokin wrote:

>Hello!
>
>On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:26PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Hm, why should it fail?
>>>      
>>>
>>Incompatible options should fail as they represent error.  Feel free to 
>>argue with that.
>>    
>>
>
>Hm, I am not going to argue. But we never had this kind of logic.
>Usually the latest-specified option was taking effect.
>
>Bye,
>    Oleg
>
>
>
>  
>
Conflicts in the same command line should fail, latest command line 
should override.  Yes?

-- 
Hans