Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:08:56 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: getopt_long incompatibility On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Michael Forney wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:18:16PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > I read the gnulib code but I don't see why it expects a match. From > > the glibc code it looks to me like the ambig_list should have length 2 > > and produce an error. I don't see any reasonable way getopt_long could > > choose between the two choices for the user without violating a > > principle of least surprise. Do you get what's going on? > > > > Rich > > glibc only adds to ambig_list if the following condition is met: > > if (long_only > || pfound->has_arg != p->has_arg > || pfound->flag != p->flag > || pfound->val != p->val) > > so I guess if all the matching option structs are the same, you're > allowed to pick any matching option for longindex (unless you're in > getopt_long_only). OK, I think this behavior could be allowed. Seems useless but harmless. I'll look at what it takes to implement it. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.