From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Sep 28 14:58:00 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA12562
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA11937
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.6/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA29465; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:56:38 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199609282156.PAA29465@rover.village.org>
To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Quick question about getopt 
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:37:23 PDT."
		<199609282137.OAA19084@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> 
References: <199609282137.OAA19084@lestat.nas.nasa.gov>  
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:56:37 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199609282137.OAA19084@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> Jason Thorpe writes:
:      The getopt() function was once specified to return EOF instead of -1.
:      This was changed by IEEE Std1003.2-1992 (``POSIX.2'') to decouple
:      getopt() from <stdio.h>.

OK.  That's useful to know.  Thanks for the info.

Given the standards reference, should FreeBSD[*] change getopt to return
-1 rather than EOF?  I'm inclidned to say yes.  However, there are
likely reasons for not doing this.

Comments?

Warner

[*] If the answer is "yes" then I'll volunteer to make the changes to
the tree that are needed.