cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add main.c pkg_add.1
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 ...
remko at FreeBSD.org
Wed Jun 4 20:12:58 UTC 2008
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
> 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,
> parts of the switch cascade. Elements in a switch statement that
> should have a FALLTHROUGH comment. Numerical arguments should be
> for accuracy. Code that cannot be reached should have a NOTREACHED
> 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).
/"\ Best regards, | remko at FreeBSD.org
\ / Remko Lodder | remko at EFnet
X http://www.evilcoder.org/ |
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
More information about the cvs-src