Re: [Swftools-common] png2swg not displaying first image in loop - no that's not it

[Mark Lane]

Matthias Kramm wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 12:14:22PM -0600, Mark Lane wrote:
>
> > Numerical arguments are fine but the routine for processing command line 
> > options should be able to know the difference between "-v 1" and "-v 
> > something.png". 
>
>
> Agreed. The current implementation uses atoi(value), which just returns
> zero on failure, and doesn't output a warning to the user.
> Concering -v, I now changed the png2swf/jpeg2swf syntax to the -v, -vv,
> -vvv syntax used by all the other tools anyway, but it probably still
> needs to be fixed for things like -q <quality>.
>
>
> > It all goes back to a design flaw in processing arguments AFAICT. It
> > looks like you are try to break everything up into option/value
> > pairs and you introduce the errors there.
>
>
> I only break things into option/value where the command itself dictates
> (in one of the callback functions), that it needs a value.
> I'm not sure why you think the argument processing itself is flawed-
> Could you elaborate?

Okay maybe I read the code wrong. I was having trouble following 
what exactly you were doing. I thought that the processargs 
function was spliting the arguments for you into option/value 
pairs before processing them. Sorry for the confusion.

I do thing that the way you handle the commandline arguments is 
flawed in that they need to be in a specific order. There are 
ways to handle the commandline arguments without require such a 
strict order.

--
Mark Lane, CET <address@hidden>
Sales Manager, Hard Data Ltd. <http://www.harddata.com>
11060 166 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta, T5X 1Y3
Phone: 01-780-456-9771 Fax: 01-780-456-9772
############## Check Out Our New Laptops ##############