Raymond Toy wrote:
> Leo Butler wrote:
>
>>
>> < And most of the newly expanded options aren't defined. I guess that
>> < clause is meant to handle the case of -abc where -a, -b, and -c are
>> < options. But this doesn't work well if the value of an option looks
>> < like an option. Expand-args seems too greedy.
>> <
>> < Can we live without being able to recognize -abc as three separate
>> < options all smashed into one?
>> <
>> < Or maybe we need a new command line parser? (I'd rather not write a
>> < new one.)
>>
>> Getopt_long has been ported to cl by K Rosenberg.
>>
>>
>>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't understand "-abc":
>
>
After a little bit of hacking on getopt, it recognizes -abc now. Not
sure I have all the semantics right, but it if a, b, and c are valid
options, -abc is recognized as 3 separate options.
Ray