On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:02 PM Bart wrote:
> I tried the proposed fix (it should go in 5 lines from the bottom i=of
> Internal_getopt), and it does not fix the issue.
I attached a possible fix to the bugreport.
Are there tests for the getopst unit?
--
Bart
__
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:04 PM Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> I think getopts has changed since the bug was reported, but maybe the
> proposed fix is still valid.
The report is from 2011.
Since then there has been a 1 change, adding 1 line, to getopts.pp
I tried the proposed fix (it should go i
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:56:12 +0100, Martok
wrote:
>Am 13.01.2019 um 18:43 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>> Assuming you mean the command-line arguments:
>>
>> What's wrong/missing with the functionality in TCustomApplication ?
>Other than that nobody in the wild seems to fully use it? ;-)
>Even m
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Bart wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:56 AM Martok wrote:
I'm a fan of getopts and use it (with a small wrapper) for almost everything (i.
[2]), but it seems that many people are not aware it even exists. It's even
POSIX compliant, so the program's users won't be surpr
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:56 AM Martok wrote:
> I'm a fan of getopts and use it (with a small wrapper) for almost everything
> (i.
> [2]), but it seems that many people are not aware it even exists. It's even
> POSIX compliant, so the program's users won't be surprised by some
> implementation
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Martok wrote:
Am 13.01.2019 um 18:43 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
Assuming you mean the command-line arguments:
What's wrong/missing with the functionality in TCustomApplication ?
Other than that nobody in the wild seems to fully use it? ;-)
Your count is a little bia
Am 13.01.2019 um 18:43 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
> Assuming you mean the command-line arguments:
>
> What's wrong/missing with the functionality in TCustomApplication ?
Other than that nobody in the wild seems to fully use it? ;-)
Even most of the examples in the compiler tree use homegrown par
