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
-
Order getopt arguments
- df8b8968d409 16.0 landed