| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 16:21:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob3-aUZNDvutbpy46HRftCaJVn1SK8uLKdtBTgbss_3Fg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
I was only talking about the actual argument to getopt(), not the
order of the code stanzas. I'm not sure what we ought to do about the
latter.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-12-05 16:36:19 | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-12-05 16:20:02 | Re: Error-safe user functions |