Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:07:13 -0500 From: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> To: Per Lundberg <plundis@chaosdev.org> Cc: Alex Zepeda <garbanzo@hooked.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: glibc Message-ID: <19990719080712.A15178@holly.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907191452050.14185-100000@abraham.chaosdev.org>; from Per Lundberg on Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 02:58:43PM %2B0200 References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907190051270.4478-100000@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907191452050.14185-100000@abraham.chaosdev.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999, Per Lundberg wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote: > > > It's quite easily argued that depending on a *NON STANDARD* getopt routine > > is a bug. > > I know it isn't standard. But it works well, and is used by a lot of > programs. Perhaps it should have been put in another library than libc, > though. Actually, I'd better suggest this to the GNU people right ahead. What is the point of using GNU-getopt over the standard getopt other than --foo-bar flags that everyone I know hates? -- |Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> |Watch out for off-by-one errors. `---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990719080712.A15178>