From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Sep 28 20:36:36 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA12587
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA12545
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id NAA14195; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:32:16 +1000
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:32:16 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199609290332.NAA14195@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: imp@village.org, thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Quick question about getopt
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>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.

None.  EOF is identical with (-1) on all supported systems, and there
are no complications from EOF being defined in the wrong places.

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

Get them from 4.4Lite2.

Bruce