std.getopt suggestion

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Fri Sep 30 10:20:52 PDT 2011


On Friday, September 30, 2011 09:37 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/30/11 9:01 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2011 13:07:55 Christophe wrote:
> >> foobar , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145799), a écrit :
> >>> Does getopt (btw, awful name)
> >> 
> >> getopt is the name of a Posix function to read option arguments in many
> >> langages. I don't think it should be changed. People trying to
> >> accomplish this task will be looking for a function with that name.
> > 
> > The _module_ is named std.getopt. People looking for it are going to find
> > it. std.getopt.getopt doesn't follow Phobos' naming convention, so that
> > would be a good reason to change the name to getOpt or getOptions. The
> > fact that Posix has a function with the same name doesn't necessarily
> > mean all that much, since Posix uses different naming conventions from
> > Phobos, and our getopt does not work the same way as Posix' getopt (as I
> > understand it, it's closer to perl's). Now, there is some argument for
> > leaving it as getopt because of the fact that several languages use that
> > name, but if we need to change the defaults for getopt (and it looks
> > like it's probably going to be a good idea to do so),
> 
> ahem

??? Please elaborate.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list