Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:34:03 +0100 From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.csd.uu.se> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getopt(1) or getopts(1)? Message-ID: <20000512183403.A233@parish> In-Reply-To: <20000512084656.A1146@student.csd.uu.se>; from ertr1013@student.csd.uu.se on Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:46:56AM %2B0200 References: <20000511231319.C1522@parish> <20000512084656.A1146@student.csd.uu.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:46:56AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 11:13:19PM +0100, Mark Ovens wrote:
> > Can someone clarify getopt(1) and getopts(1)? According to sh(1):
> >
> > getopts optstring var
> > The POSIX getopts command. The getopts command deprecates the
> > older getopt(1) command.....
> >
> > but there is no manpage for getopts(1), only getopt(1). The latter
> > includes some sample code which works fine, however if I change
> > ``getopt'' to ``getopts'' in this code I get:
> >
> > parish:/usr/marko{89}% ./foobar -b
> > getopts: -b: bad variable name
> > Usage: ...
> > parish:/usr/marko{90}%
> >
> > Since getopt(1) is deprecated it would be better to use getopts(1).
> > Can anyone explain the above error, or point me to some documentation
> > for getopts(1)?
> >
>
> On my system (4.0-stable) there is a manpage for getopts(1). It just a link
> to buiiltin(1) which says that it is a builtin command in sh(1).
Same here (I'm also on 4-stable). I hadn't spotted that it is a copy
of (not a link to) builtin(1).
> The manpage for sh(1) has the following to say about getopts:
>
> getopts optstring var
> The POSIX getopts command. The getopts command deprecates the
> older getopt(1) command. The first argument should be a series
> of letters, each possibly followed by a colon which indicates
> that the option takes an argument. The specified variable is set
> to the parsed option. The index of the next argument is placed
> into the shell variable OPTIND. If an option takes an argument,
> it is placed into the shell variable OPTARG. If an invalid option
> is encountered, var is set to `?''. It returns a false value (1)
> when it encounters the end of the options.
>
>
The first couple of lines of which I quoted in my original post so,
yes, I have read it. However it reads as though the syntax is the same
as getopt(1) (at least to me it does). So the question remains; why
does the sample code in getopt(1) not work if I change ``getopt'' to
``getopts'' in the first line?
I'm quite happy to RTFM, if only I could find a FM to R :)
>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
--
...and on the eighth day God created UNIX
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000512183403.A233>