Hi,
this was discussed months ago, I also raised this briefly at Sharkfest -
but I changed my mind since then.
>> Guy Harris skrev 2013-04-09 00:32:
>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Anders Broman <a.bro...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I think we have getopt_long already
>>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=41926
>> We do, so we have it available on both platforms that have it (most
>> UN*Xes, these days) and platforms that don't (Windows, which has neither
>> getopt() nor getopt_long(), and perhaps some current UN*Xes and older
>> versions of other UN*Xes).
We don't have getopt_long() on windows at the moment. But we're
99% there. All it takes is copying another 10 lines from glibc.
It looks like getopt() and getopt_long() share a lot of helper
functions. So we're not pulling in a lot of new code if we provide a
getopt_long() implementation on windows.
>>We're not using it, however; did you check that in for future use, and
>>did you have any future use in mind?
>I think it was added in conjunction with looking at
>https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2473 at the time I
>think there were discussion about using long options for various stuff.
>I just added it so we would have all options open as I didn't quite like
>the glib implementation for some reason I don't quite remember now.
Lately, I played a bit more with the goptions. Changing completely from
getopt() to goptions seems a lot of work for no real benefit (unless we
do this everywhere where getopt() is used at the moment).
I tried to use goptions only for the long opts and leave getopt() in
place for the existing options. They don't co-exist well, there's always
a way to produce strange errors.
In short: Contrary to what I said at sharkfest, I believe that
getopt_long() is the way to go. Unless anyone protests, I'll make the
required changes and start using it.
Best regards,
Martin
