Greg Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's no redundancy here (short options aren't currently specified
> in the long options array), but I suppose we could easily shoehorn
> short options into the long options structure by assuming that any
> option with a single-character name is a short option.
>
> (Just to be clear, short options and long options are specified
> differently on the command line. "-abc" is three short options,
> unless -a or -b takes an argument; "--abc" is one long option.)
Yes, that's clear (about one dash vs two dashes).
Okay. Anyway, I think it would be nice if, when a short and long
option mean the same thing, they could be specified in the same
place. :-)
One way is to replace the `val' field in apr_getopt_long_t with this:
/* An array of single-letter options, any of which is equivalent to
this long option, terminated by '\0'. */
const char *short_equivs;
Of course, there would be no need for colons in that array, since the
`has_arg' field is already there.
How does that sound?
> Nope. (I designed the interface, and paid no attention to the planned
> implementation.)
Cool, I take that back. :-)
-K
