On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:05:46PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote: > ""Wolfram A. Kraushaar"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > :) > > > > What about using popt instead of getopt in a future version? > > Popt looks pretty neat, and it's small and portable and gives us long > options without relying on GNU getopt_long. So, if we decide to do long > options, we should probably move to popt at the same time. > > Currently in CVS, and waiting to be reborn in 2.1, is the Sieve command > line tool. We might consider popt-ing it first, since it probably will > need to be rewritten before 2.2 comes out -- but if not, let's not make > unneeded work.
You make it seems like using getopt_long has difficulty in which it really has none. Dan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
