On 11 February 2012 16:02, Kurt H Maier <khm-suckl...@intma.in> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:39:35PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> It's quite consistent in most suckless tools actually. One difference >> I stumbled upon is exactly stest, because it uses the clunky getopt() >> approach and I really wonder why it needs so many flags. > > sbase uses getopt and I suspect will continue to do so. it's all very > well to go on about 'too much choice' but it's hard enough to get people > to implement fundamental unix utilities without also demanding they jump > through option parsing hoops for no technical reason. > > if you like for() stuff so much, why not put it into a function and > stuff that into a library? maybe call it getopt?
Writing a for() loop to process the arguments is the same effort as using the ARG... approach or using getopt(). Hence, there is absolutely no point in writing a function or macro that does it, as arguments will vary from tool to tool. Cheers, Anselm
