Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:12:51 +0200 From: Remko Lodder <remko@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl>, Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add main.c pkg_add.1 src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/create main.c pkg_create.1 src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/delete main.c pkg_delete.1 src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/info main.c pkg_info.1 ... Message-ID: <4846F743.3040903@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4846F30A.5070204@FreeBSD.org> References: <200805301426.m4UEQ92d025434@repoman.freebsd.org> <48405C4B.3050603@FreeBSD.org> <1212179252.1967.1.camel@localhost> <a01628140806030818te29e2fet287d59f5ceedfc9c@mail.gmail.com> <20080604041815.GA84027@FreeBSD.org> <20080604043955.GA38627@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20080604063631.GA28351@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20080604150013.GA44358@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20080604191339.GA31570@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20080604192955.GA46284@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4846EF10.1020803@FreeBSD.org> <4846F30A.5070204@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Remko Lodder wrote: >>> Where do we stop? Should we add long options to all >>> /usr/bin utilities? Why stop at /usr/bin, let's add >>> long options to /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin, /rescue, etc. >>> >> >> That is not your call. If a maintainer wants to add all options he can >> consider, he is free to do so. Though others might not appreciate that >> as much as he does. It can be discussed ofcourse, but to a certain >> extend. > > It's not your call either. We have style(9), which says: > > For consistency, getopt(3) should be used to parse options. Options > should be sorted in the getopt(3) call and the switch statement, > unless > parts of the switch cascade. Elements in a switch statement that > cascade > should have a FALLTHROUGH comment. Numerical arguments should be > checked > for accuracy. Code that cannot be reached should have a NOTREACHED > com- > ment. > > There is nothing about getopt_long(3) being acceptable > replacement/addition to the getopt(3). > getopt(3) is implemented, and it's expanded by getopt_long(3) in this case. The requirement is fullfilled and made more readable (in my eyes) then before. Not everyone agrees, too bad, the world is not perfect :-). (I'll end discussing this with this email). Cheers, remko -- /"\ Best regards, | remko@FreeBSD.org \ / Remko Lodder | remko@EFnet X http://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4846F743.3040903>