Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 06:32:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Cc: imp@village.org Subject: Re: Quick question about getopt Message-ID: <199609290432.GAA05625@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199609290332.NAA14195@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "Sep 29, 96 01:32:16 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Bruce Evans wrote: > >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. Except that all tools that compare the result against EOF should also be changed to compare it against -1 then. In theory, it's even possible that some of the tools don't require <stdio.h> no longer then (since this was also the rationale behind the Posix change). So Warner, this is certainly the part of the task that requires more work than changing a man page. ;-) Yep, you are allowed to commit to the entire tree, except that changes like the merge of 4.4-Lite2 should be planned carefully, and discussed with Peter Wemm before. (Speaking from own bad experience...) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609290432.GAA05625>