This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Question about ash and getopts
- From: "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton dot net>
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:10:23 -0700
- Subject: RE: Question about ash and getopts
Peter Seebach wrote:
>In message <3FEFDE5B.email@example.com>, Dario Alcocer writes:
>>Use the "set -- `getopt`" idiom instead:
>Yes, but *why*?
% cygcheck --version
cygcheck version 1.30
System Checker for Cygwin
Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Red Hat, Inc.
Compiled on Feb 8 2003
% cat > bt.sh
set -- `getopt`
echo $0 $2 $4
echo $1 $3 $5
% bt.sh 1 2 3 4 5 6
getopt: missing optstring argument
Try `getopt --help' for more information.
Hey. It got $0 right.
So I take it this "idiom" is only supposed to work in newer cygwin versions?
And I too am puzzled why someone would defeature a shell instead of letting it work with either
method. I don't see it as a portability issue unless you think a significant number of users will
be porting their scripts from systems running cygwin to systems running atavistic variants of UNIX.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html