On Fri, Dec 19, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote: > popt competes for mind share with getopt, and > particularly with GNU getopt_long, the Debian added borkedness (jmnsho). > > Should I add a getopt(3)/getopt_long(3) wrapper onto > popt to lower the barrier to converting from getopt_long(3)? > > I personally don't care a bit because I use popt instead > of getopt_long(3) all the time and everywhere. > > But the wrapper (with AutoFu disablers) is trivially arranged > if there is interest.
Ah, yes, as long as one can still build a POPT without these two symbols (to avoid conflicts) this would be a really nice addition for POPT. I would say: go for it as long as is an _optional_ feature! Ralf S. Engelschall r...@engelschall.com www.engelschall.com ______________________________________________________________________ POPT Library http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List email@example.com