[hackers] [slock][PATCH] Improve option parsing routine

This reduces the amount of strcmp() calls and comparisons in general to a minimum. --- slock.c | 13 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/slock.c b/slock.c index 283b04e..e9b050a 100644 --- a/slock.c +++ b/slock.c @@ -298,15 +298,14 @@ main(int argc, char

[hackers] [slock][PATCH] Remove arg.h, simplify option parsing

arg.h is really ugly code and way to complex for tools like slock that have such minimal synopsis. Regardless of that, usage() does not have to be a function of it's own if it's called just once. This (hopefully) is the final commit implementing proper command-line pargsing adhering to the POSIX

[hackers] [slock][PATCH] Allow usage of -- as end-of-options specifier

As pointed out in #suckless, sticking to the POSIX Utility Syntax Guidelines[0] is a good idea. 0: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html#tag_12_02 --- slock.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/slock.c b/slock.c index af5edb2..1d28e3a 100644

Re: [hackers] [slock][PATCH] Replace arg.h with if statements, simplify

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Klemens Nanni wrote: > > ++argv is put on a seperate line since doing it within the execvp() call > would produce a compiler warning. Yes, because that's invoking undefined behavior. There is no guarantee as to the order of execution of function

[hackers] [slock][PATCH] Replace arg.h with if statements, simplify

arg.h is pretty ugly code, but that is a matter of taste. Technically speaking the argument parsing can be done much cleaner especially for programs with such simple synopsis. Regardless of that, usage() does not have to be a function of it's own if it's called just once. ++argv is put on a

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:58:14PM +0200, Martin Kühne wrote: > IMHO, when failing to parse command line arguments, usage() should be > called before exiting with EXIT_FAILURE. > on invocation with -h|--help, it should exit with EXIT_SUCCESS. > > cheers! > mar77i This sounds sane and solves the

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] get rid of unnecessary ternary operator

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > > FWIW: I disagree. The ternary form is slightly longer but more readable. I too disagree. I think the !! is more readable and idiomatic (either way, at least we aren't casting to bool...). But I am curious, does

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

IMHO, when failing to parse command line arguments, usage() should be called before exiting with EXIT_FAILURE. on invocation with -h|--help, it should exit with EXIT_SUCCESS. cheers! mar77i

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

> > If not, that's your fault (or the packager you trust do to it for > > you, actually again your responsability). > > Blaming someone else won't solve the issue. Exactly, hence “your responsability”.

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

On 2016-10-28 13:21, Quentin Rameau wrote: On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +, Ali H. Fardan wrote: >> actually, imo, I think >> usage() should return success. > Surely not. > The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to >

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

> On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +, Ali H. Fardan wrote: > >> actually, imo, I think > >> usage() should return success. > > Surely not. > > The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to > > the tool, you wouldn't

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

On 2016-10-28 13:02, Quentin Rameau wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:45:14PM +, Ali H. Fardan wrote: actually, imo, I think usage() should return success. Surely not. The call to usage() is made when wrong options have been passed to the tool, you wouldn't return “no error” code when

Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

I don't think -v should output to stderr either, actually, imo, I think usage() should return success. On 2016-10-28 12:40, Klemens Nanni wrote: Returning -1 upon a valid invocation like 'dwm -v' is just wrong. --- dwm.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

[hackers] [dwm][PATCH] Do not call die() upon '-v' invocation

Returning -1 upon a valid invocation like 'dwm -v' is just wrong. --- dwm.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c index 421bf27..35828b4 100644 --- a/dwm.c +++ b/dwm.c @@ -2122,8 +2122,10 @@ zoom(const Arg *arg) int main(int argc, char *argv[])

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] get rid of unnecessary ternary operator

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:17:09 +0200 Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: Hey Hiltjo, > FWIW: I disagree. The ternary form is slightly longer but more > readable. yeah, it's more of a taste thing. I don't mind either way, so let's keep it as is. Cheers Laslo -- Laslo Hunhold

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH] get rid of unnecessary ternary operator

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:41:25PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:02:32 +0200 > Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > > To me ! is logical NOT and your suggestion relies on the fact that > > XUrgencyHint is a single bit flag? no? > > I prefer the original code, as it