Re: Order getopt arguments
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Order getopt arguments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob3-aUZNDvutbpy46HRftCaJVn1SK8uLKdtBTgbss_3Fg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Order getopt arguments (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Order getopt arguments
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: