From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 14.mo3.mail-out.ovh.net ([188.165.43.98] helo=mo3.mail-out.ovh.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1U2Ljg-0008Cz-DL for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:05:25 +0000 Received: from mail622.ha.ovh.net (b9.ovh.net [213.186.33.59]) by mo3.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E8F2FFA5F5 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:19:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:04:04 +0100 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Message-ID: <20130204130404.GI18068@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <20130204115856.GB3366@x61s.8.8.8.8> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130204115856.GB3366@x61s.8.8.8.8> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: the different between getopt and getopts To: Alexander Aring Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On 12:58 Mon 04 Feb , Alexander Aring wrote: > Hi, > > barebox has a builtin "getopt" hush implementation. But this "getopt" > implementation used a syntax which is more like "getopts". > > "getopt" and "getopts" do the same thing in different syntax. See: > > http://aplawrence.com/Unix/getopts.html > > In my opinion we should rename "getopt" to "getopts". I can make a patch for > this, but I don't know if there is a special reason why in barebox > "getopts" is "getopt". no this will break down comptibility Best Regards, J. > > Regards Alex > > _______________________________________________ > barebox mailing list > barebox@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox