Chris Morgan wrote: > I've never used a flavor of linux that didn't support > arguments and options in arbitrary(within reason) order. I > think if you started forcing users to enter options in a > strict order you would be met with considerable resistance as > this restriction is unnecessary. I'm not asking for every > tool to accept arguments in different orders, I'm just asking > ofr getopt_long() to accept reordering. All apps that use > getopt_long() will then support argument reordering to the > extent that getopt_long() does, all of the tools I use on > linux boxes do so, including gcc and linker tools, without any > trouble at all. This behavior actually used to be supported > in cygwin but was changed, maybe a year or a year and a half > ago.
On Mon Sep 24 22:49:12 2001 UTC (16 months ago), to be precise. Hmm - with that info, I found a little bit of info on cyg-dev about why the change was made. The problem essentially being with commands that take other commands after them: strace ls -l #oops, getopt makes this strace -l ls It seems like you trade ease of use in some circumstances with difficulty in others. > I just wanted to bring the issue back up again to see if > cygwin tools could be made to work like their linux/unix > counterparts again. I guess it all depends on which you aspire to be closer to, linux or POSIX. Personally, I'd prefer it if Cygwin didn't enforce POSIXLY_CORRECT, and people who wanted it could set it in their environment. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
