From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 1 15:10:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA17270 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 15:10:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ginseng.indigo.ie (ts02-05.waterford.indigo.ie [194.125.139.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA17258 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 15:10:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rotel@indigo.ie) Received: (qmail 1119 invoked by uid 1000); 1 Jan 1998 23:13:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19980101231313.1118.qmail@ginseng.indigo.ie> From: "Niall Smart" Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 23:13:12 +0000 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(3) 11/17/96) To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: getopt(3) and numeric arguments Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Hi, The getopt(3) man page says: It is also possible to handle digits as option letters. This allows getopt() to be used with programs that expect a number (``-3'') as an op- tion. This practice is wrong, and should not be used in any current de- velopment. It is provided for backward compatibility only. Is this correct? Whats so bad about it? Niall