Re: Order getopt arguments

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Order getopt arguments
Date: 2022-12-05 16:13:39
Message-ID: 3304612.1670256819@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> +1 for Peter's proposal to just alphabetize. That's easy to maintain,
> at least in theory.

Agreed for single-letter options. Long options complicate matters:
are we going to order their code stanzas by the actual long name, or
by the character/number returned by getopt? Or are we going to be
willing to repeatedly renumber the assigned codes to keep those the
same? I don't think I want to go that far.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-12-05 16:16:43 Re: pg_dump: Remove "blob" terminology
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-12-05 16:09:27 Re: Error-safe user functions