‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 16th, 2021 at 7:51 PM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
wrote:
On 11/16/21 2:43 PM, irenezerafa wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 16th, 2021 at 7:34 PM, Chet Ramey chet.ramey@case.edu
wrote:
On 11/16/21 2:28 PM, irenezerafa via wrote:
I want to parse options in the following way "-C8", with the option being -C
and the value being `8`. What can
I do to implement the functionality?
Use `getopts'.
I do not want to go through the getopts or getopt routes. Primarily because
they are too simplistic
for my tasks. I am allowing both short and long options in my code, as well as
optional values for
options, multiple values per option.
OK, this is a good example. I'm going to take one shot here at an
explanation of why you don't get the help you feel you should. Then I'm
out.
First, adding requirements as people give you solutions, thereby changing
the problem space, doesn't encourage people to help you. Why should they
solve the problem as you've described it, only to have you move the
goalposts? Fully describe the problem and all of its requirements, up
front.
Have not move the goalpost, the question is still about parsing "-C8"
and store the value. Was answering your question why I am not going with
the getopts or getopt route.
Second, folks on this list like to see some evidence that you've actually
tried to solve the problem yourself. Maybe post some code you've written
that attempts to do that (but be prepared for criticism). Without posting
your code attempts, the impression is that you'd like to be spoon-fed the
answer.
This is how I handle "-C 8" and "-C=8".
("-C") # for -C 8
cnt="$2"
shift 2
;;
("-C="*) # for -C=8
cnt="${1#*=}"
shift
;;