From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 28373 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2021 22:20:08 -0000
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 31 Jul 2021 22:20:08 -0000
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id 4661B9CA5E; Sun,  1 Aug 2021 08:20:07 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2451B9C9B4;
	Sun,  1 Aug 2021 08:19:52 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
 id DF9A09C9B4; Sun,  1 Aug 2021 08:19:50 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250])
 by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA579C9B2
 for <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>; Sun,  1 Aug 2021 08:19:50 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546)
 id 3C02535E0F8; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 15:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 15:19:50 -0700
From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20210731221950.GH23759@mcvoy.com>
References: <20210731142533.69caf929@moon>
 <202107311920.16VJK2jT2362871@fourwinds.com>
 <CAFH29to=A77KqHo8M9KjY4UW6cTaWqrqEKj8SpTPMtj9JYQpFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <202107312132.16VLW6VD2410038@fourwinds.com>
 <CANCZdfp1=zB5yaf+Fbiwki5SDFOE0oLQ_y8mEPEoLCgTdvKQ_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfp1=zB5yaf+Fbiwki5SDFOE0oLQ_y8mEPEoLCgTdvKQ_g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Systematic approach to command-line interfaces [ meta
 issues ]
X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: TUHS main list <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
Sender: "TUHS" <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 04:10:04PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 3:33 PM Jon Steinhart <jon@fourwinds.com> wrote:
> 
> > Richard Salz writes:
> > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 3:21 PM Jon Steinhart <jon@fourwinds.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > opinion, it doesn't add value to do something that's already been done
> > > > but differently; it detracts from value because now there's yet another
> > > > competing way to do something.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean like not using getopt and rolling your own?  Shrug.
> > >
> > > while ((i = getopt(argc, argv, "xxxxx:xxxx")) != -1)
> > >    switch (i) {
> > >    case ....
> > >   }
> > > argc -= optind;
> > > argv += optind;
> > >
> > > So I never got getopt().  One of my rules is that I don't use a library
> > > > in cases where the number of lines of gunk that that it takes to use a
> > > > library function is >= the number of lines to just write it myself.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know, what lines in the above are extra beyond what you write?
> > The
> > > last two if being generous I suppose.
> >
> > Well, in my opinion that's not really an accurate representation of using
> > getopt.
> >
> > I would of course write the #include line, and the table of options, which
> > would
> > end up being >= the number of lines that it takes me to do this...
> >
> >         while (--argc > 0) {
> >                 if (*(++argv)[0] == '-') {
> >                         for (p = *argv + 1; *p != '\0'; p++) {
> >                                 switch (*p) {
> >
> 
> Except for all the things this gets wrong, it's ok. The problem with
> inlining getopt
> is that you wind up with cases like -f foo'' on the command line being
> treated differently
> than '-ffoo'. 

BitKeeper's getopt had a different char for that: "f:" allows -ffoo or -f foo
but "f;" insists on no space.

With that, I'm bowing out of this thread, it's becoming a bike shed.