Re: Handling getopt for option without optional argument value

[Chet Ramey]

On 7/23/21 1:23 PM, lisa-asket@perso.be wrote:

> How would you propose adding the specification of these long options to the
> existing getopts argument syntax in a compatible way?
>
> Couldn't we get ideas from getopt and from gcc getopt.h ?

Presumably. Why not go ahead and suggest some?

> Handling long options has been done within gnu programs before, am I right 
> ? This is about
> introducing it for gnu bash.  Otherwise I will continue using getopt.  But 
> some are saying that
> getopt will not be supported in the next major release.  But this does not 
> bother certain other
> people of having others get their scripts broken.  What is the sense of not 
> allowing getopt
> when you don't provide a replacement !

There is a basic disconnect here. I'm not interested in the external
command `getopt'. I am asking about your ideas about how to change the
current builtin command `getopts' to satisfy your requirements in a
backwards-compatible way.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/