Peter Seebach wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dario Alcocer writes: >>Use the "set -- `getopt`" idiom instead: >Yes, but *why*?
============== % cygcheck --version cygcheck version 1.30 System Checker for Cygwin Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Red Hat, Inc. Compiled on Feb 8 2003 % cat > bt.sh #!/bin/sh set -- `getopt` echo $0 $2 $4 echo $1 $3 $5 ^D % bt.sh 1 2 3 4 5 6 getopt: missing optstring argument Try `getopt --help' for more information. ./bt.sh =============== Hey. It got $0 right. So I take it this "idiom" is only supposed to work in newer cygwin versions? And I too am puzzled why someone would defeature a shell instead of letting it work with either method. I don't see it as a portability issue unless you think a significant number of users will be porting their scripts from systems running cygwin to systems running atavistic variants of UNIX. --Blair -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
