Subject:
|
Re: PRGM button - am I missing something?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:51:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1408 times
|
| |
|
|
Ben Jackson schrieb:
> > From getopt(3) on BSD and other systems:
>
> When all options have been processed (i.e., up to the first
> non-option argument), getopt() returns -1.
>
> However, from the Linux manpage:
>
> By default, getopt() permutes the contents of argv as it
> scans, so that eventually all the non-options are at the
> end. Two other modes are also implemented. If the first
> character of optstring is `+' or the environment variable
> POSIXLY_CORRECT is set, then option processing stops as
> soon as a non-option argument is encountered.
OK, I'll change the docs and examples, then. Too bad, I thought
position-independence very nifty indeed.
Markus.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: PRGM button - am I missing something?
|
| (...) Yep, the option order was the problem on Windows. getopt does indeed happily ignores any options found after the first non-option. Thanks again! -Jeff p.s. And don't worry, I can take any Windows jabs you have to offer - I've heard 'em all. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: PRGM button - am I missing something?
|
| (...) From getopt(3) on BSD and other systems: When all options have been processed (i.e., up to the first non-option argument), getopt() returns -1. However, from the Linux manpage: By default, getopt() permutes the contents of argv as it scans, so (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
