Optional option argument
Shiro Kawai
(07 Jul 2020 02:44 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(07 Jul 2020 09:35 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument Anthony Carrico (08 Jul 2020 16:49 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(08 Jul 2020 23:41 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
John Cowan
(08 Jul 2020 23:43 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(09 Jul 2020 00:05 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
John Cowan
(09 Jul 2020 00:07 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(09 Jul 2020 00:18 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
John Cowan
(09 Jul 2020 00:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Arthur A. Gleckler
(30 Nov 2020 19:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(30 Nov 2020 21:12 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Dec 2020 00:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Eugenio Montano
(01 Dec 2020 01:50 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Dec 2020 01:57 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(01 Dec 2020 14:18 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Shiro Kawai
(08 Jul 2020 19:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(08 Jul 2020 23:57 UTC)
|
||
Fwd: Optional option argument
Arthur A. Gleckler
(07 Jul 2020 17:34 UTC)
|
||
Re: Fwd: Optional option argument
Anthony Carrico
(08 Jul 2020 16:10 UTC)
|
||
Re: Fwd: Optional option argument
Arthur A. Gleckler
(08 Jul 2020 19:29 UTC)
|
On 7/7/20 5:34 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > Whatever SRFI 37 does, for the user it should be compatible with GNU's > getopt_long, which means that optional arguments to long options have > to use the '=' syntax. I very much agree about this. It does conflict with the SRFI-37 sample implementation, as I point out in my other note. > And optional arguments to short options have to > be in the same argv element according to the documentation to GNU's > getopt. This seems very strange to me. It violates the document I referenced for GNU guidelines in the SRFI: https://web.archive.org/web/20030805192036/https://www.gnu.org/manual/glibc/html_node/Argument-Syntax.html "An option and its argument may or may not appear as separate tokens. (In other words, the whitespace separating them is optional.) Thus, -o foo and -ofoo are equivalent." However, you are correct that this is the current documented behavior for GNU getopt_long documented behavior: "If such a character is followed by a colon, the option requires an argument, so getopt() places a pointer to the following text in the same argv-element, or the text of the following argv-element, in optarg. Two colons mean an option takes an optional arg; if there is text in the current argv-element (i.e., in the same word as the option name itself, for example, "-oarg"), then it is returned in optarg, otherwise optarg is set to zero." I wonder is this is a limitation of the GNU implementation which actually violates their recommendations? I'm not sure it would be a good idea to change SRFI-37 itself, because it could break code, but you could create a revision with a new SRFI number to address the long argument issue. -- Anthony Carrico