On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/01/2012 05:14 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> >> Looking at gbuildifying idlc, I noticed the glibc hack to get a getopt >> implementation on platform that don't have a native one. >> >> so, I wrote a gnu-compatile implementation based on >> http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/getopt.3.html >> >> and I intend to add it to osl for platform that do not define >> HAVE_GETOPT="YES" in configure.in > > [...] > >> If you feel strongly against that, please let me know. > > > I'm not too excited, given that our code base is already too large, anyway, > and adding something to sal has higher maintenance implications than adding > it outside the URE interface.
I can add in somewhere else... is sounded like sal was a natural... on the other hand it could be re-used in a couple of soltools executable so, maybe I could put it there, as a static lib Note that getopt is used in idlc and rscdep and partially re-implemented in soltools/cpp and soltools/javadep > > So, if there is a reasonably cheap alternative (like Boost's Program > Options), I wouldn't mind if we used that instead. getopt is used in C-programs. what I did was a drop-in 'replacement' (that compile to nothing on platform that have a native one). cramming C++ and boost into these does not seems to help for 'our code base is already large' or 'high maintenance' at least for me. Norbert _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
