From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1U2Kgf-0000Gq-GH for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:58:14 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id j5so2704915bkw.5 for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 03:58:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:58:58 +0100 From: Alexander Aring Message-ID: <20130204115856.GB3366@x61s.8.8.8.8> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline 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: the different between getopt and getopts To: barebox@lists.infradead.org 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". Regards Alex _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox