Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:57:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> +			if (!force_nonopt && place[0] == '-' && place[1])
> +			{
> +				if (place[1] != '-' || place[2])
> +					break;
> +
> +				optind++;
> +				force_nonopt = true;
> +				continue;
> +			}
> 
> The first if looks good to me, but the second if is a bit hard to get the meaning at a glance. "!(place[1] == '-' && place[2] == 0)" is easier to read *to me*. Or I'm fine with the following structure here.

I'd readily admit that it's tough to read these lines.  I briefly tried to
make use of strcmp() to improve readability, but I wasn't having much luck.
I'll give it another try.

>> if (!force_nonopt ... )
>> {
>>   if (place[1] == '-' && place[2] == 0)
>>   {
>>      optind+;
>>      force_nonopt = true;
>>      continue;
>>   }
>>   break;
>> }
> 
> (To be honest, I see the goto looked clear than for(;;)..)

Okay.  I don't mind adding it back if it improves readability.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com