Re: Order getopt arguments

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-12-05T16:21:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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



Commits

  1. Order getopt arguments