Re: GetOpt revised

[Inmate2993 <inmatarian@...>]

 Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
> 1) It parses all options and returns a table; why is it called "getopt"
>    (which implies that it returns a single option)?
> 
> 2) Only allowing "--foo=bar" syntax, and not "--foo bar" syntax, is
>    likely to surprise users.  Instead of having the options argument be
>    a string, why not make it a table containing an entry for each option
>    name that takes an arg?  Then long-options could be specified too.
> 
> 3) The behavior of skipping "option-like" (beginning with "-") values
>    when searching for an option's argument may seem clever, but is not
>    compatible with traditional practice, and seems likely to frustrate
>    users.  It seems better to just be simple and use the next available
>    value for an option's argument, whether or not it starts with "-".
> 
> 4) Some weird results:
> 
>      test_opts({"--opt", "oink", "--other", "-a", "foo", "-c", "baz"}, "ab")
>      [a]        <oink>
>      [opt]      <true>
>      [c]        <true>
>      [other]    <true>
> 
>    Notice A's value...

I talked to someone who is a regular LKML poster and also pointed out to me that the notation -LBlah wouldn't work as it does with ls. Thanks for the feedback.