Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-02-23 at 21:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Oliver, I am going to reject this. We give them the syntax for the
> > params. I don't see a need to check for leading dash to see if they
> > forgot a param. I would like to see a more general solution that uses
> > getopt or something more robust, but moving all that checking to each
> > param just seems like a waste.
>
> I would certainly prefer to use getopt, but is that portable? Peter
> wants me to use case..esac instead of cut; I would have thought getopt
> was a lot less portable.
No, it isn't. The problem is we don't have a portable solution _and_ we
don't want to throw checks all over the place. I realize this is a
non-solution, but I guess I don't consider is a big problem.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
