From owner-freebsd-questions Fri May 12 21:28:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526F837B834 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 21:28:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org) Received: from [62.7.62.186] (helo=parish.my.domain) by gadolinium with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12qJKg-00040w-00; Fri, 12 May 2000 18:34:38 +0100 Received: (from mark@localhost) by parish.my.domain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01125; Fri, 12 May 2000 18:34:04 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:34:03 +0100 From: Mark Ovens To: Erik Trulsson Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getopt(1) or getopts(1)? Message-ID: <20000512183403.A233@parish> References: <20000511231319.C1522@parish> <20000512084656.A1146@student.csd.uu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000512084656.A1146@student.csd.uu.se>; from ertr1013@student.csd.uu.se on Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:46:56AM +0200 Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:46:56AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 11:13:19PM +0100, Mark Ovens wrote: > > Can someone clarify getopt(1) and getopts(1)? According to sh(1): > > > > getopts optstring var > > The POSIX getopts command. The getopts command deprecates the > > older getopt(1) command..... > > > > but there is no manpage for getopts(1), only getopt(1). The latter > > includes some sample code which works fine, however if I change > > ``getopt'' to ``getopts'' in this code I get: > > > > parish:/usr/marko{89}% ./foobar -b > > getopts: -b: bad variable name > > Usage: ... > > parish:/usr/marko{90}% > > > > Since getopt(1) is deprecated it would be better to use getopts(1). > > Can anyone explain the above error, or point me to some documentation > > for getopts(1)? > > > > On my system (4.0-stable) there is a manpage for getopts(1). It just a link > to buiiltin(1) which says that it is a builtin command in sh(1). Same here (I'm also on 4-stable). I hadn't spotted that it is a copy of (not a link to) builtin(1). > The manpage for sh(1) has the following to say about getopts: > > getopts optstring var > The POSIX getopts command. The getopts command deprecates the > older getopt(1) command. The first argument should be a series > of letters, each possibly followed by a colon which indicates > that the option takes an argument. The specified variable is set > to the parsed option. The index of the next argument is placed > into the shell variable OPTIND. If an option takes an argument, > it is placed into the shell variable OPTARG. If an invalid option > is encountered, var is set to `?''. It returns a false value (1) > when it encounters the end of the options. > > The first couple of lines of which I quoted in my original post so, yes, I have read it. However it reads as though the syntax is the same as getopt(1) (at least to me it does). So the question remains; why does the sample code in getopt(1) not work if I change ``getopt'' to ``getopts'' in the first line? I'm quite happy to RTFM, if only I could find a FM to R :) > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message -- ...and on the eighth day God created UNIX ________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message