[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Updating FreeBSD port

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: Updating FreeBSD port
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:51:47 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20060909 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Hash: SHA1

According to Mikhail Teterin on 9/21/2006 6:43 AM:
> On Thursday 21 September 2006 08:33, Eric Blake wrote:
> = >   getopt(c, v, "r::");
> = 
> = ...even though the "::" in this line is what makes this test program leave
> = the realm of POSIX-specified behavior (and why GNU and BSD differ on
> = opinion on what should happen).
> It would seem to me, that it is gm4, that should change to rely on 
> Posix-specified behavior of standard functions (like getopt) instead of 
> expecting the platform's getopt to be "extended" or building its own 
> replacement for the standard function(s).

Sorry, but GNU coding standards require that GNU programs use long
options, and that is already something that POSIX-specified getopt()
cannot do.  Instead, gnulib makes it very easy, with getopt_long(), to
meet both GNU coding standards and to attempt to provide a superset of
POSIX semantics (and witness the various debates on the Austin mailing
list for how POSIXLY_CORRECT plays into whether getopt/getopt_long are
allowed to rearrange argument order).  Optional arguments may not be
encouraged by POSIX, but they are certainly allowed as an extension, and
since -d is not a POSIX-required argument for m4, GNU m4 is not about to
stop making -d take an optional argument just because the platform fails
to provide getopt_long or provides a getopt_long that is not up to GNU

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]