Am I reading this wrong, or is std.getopt *really* this stupid?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:30:31PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, March 24, 2018 09:59:44 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > And given the defensiveness surrounding std.getopt, my conclusion
> > can only be: dump std.getopt, roll my own.  It's sad, since in
> > general Phobos design tends to be superior to its C++ counterparts.
> > But we then have warts like std.getopt that people refuse to
> > acknowledge is a problem.  So be it.
[...]
> As for defensiveness, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. The
> main point was that given how often getopt gets called in a program,
> improving its Big-O complexity isn't worth it, but there have been a
> number of improvements to getopt over the years, so it's not like
> we're not allowed to improve it. It's just that improving its Big-O
> complexity is kind of pointless. In any case, as Andrei said, if a new
> option can be added to fix your use case, then that shouldn't be a
> problem, though I have no clue how much of a pain that will be to
> implement, particularly since std.getopt isn't exactly simple.
[...]

OK, the part about defensiveness may be just my overreaction. I
apologize.  But yeah, I glanced at the code, and don't see any easy way
to implement what Andrei agreed with. It's just too much work for
something I could just write for myself in a much shorter time. I guess
I'll just log an enhancement request in bugzilla and leave it at that.


T

-- 
It always amuses me that Windows has a Safe Mode during bootup. Does that mean that Windows is normally unsafe?