getopt() argument permuting considered risky

[Michael T Kerrisk]

Hello MÃ¥ns,

(Sorry, my first reply failed to include the list)

> "Michael T Kerrisk" <mtk-lists@gmx.net> writes:
>
>
> [why argument permutation is bad]
>
> > Some suggestions:
> >
> > 1. What are the chances of having this feature removed
> >     from glibc's getopt()?
> >
> >    I realise that the argument is probably: "it will
> >    break existing applications".  Some responses:
> >
> >    a) Is that really true: are there really applications
> >       that depend on this non-standard behaviour?
>
> The only difference I see would be that the user would be required to
> pass option arguments before non-option arguments.

Yes, but I'm not sure what point you are making?

> >    b) The existing behaviour is a security risk, as
> >       described above.
> >
> > 2. Perhaps Linux distributors should be setting
> >    POSIXLY_CORRECT in their default shell start-up
> >    files?
>
> Doing so would also alter lots of useful behavior from various GNU
> tools.

This is what I'm not sure of.  Do you know of specific examples?

(Oops, maybe you're meaning behaviours not related to getopt().
In that case I see your point, and, yes, it's true.  On first read,
I thought you were meaning that changing the getopt() behaviour
would remove the "useful behaviour", but I guess you are
making the more general point.)

Cheers,

Michaek

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
mtk-lists@gmx.net

NEU: WLAN-Router für 0,- EUR* - auch für DSL-Wechsler!
GMX DSL = supergünstig & kabellos http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl