Leo Butler wrote:
> <
> < However, the list of options is somewhat incompatible because getopt
> < wants unique abbreviations. We currently have -b, --batch, --batch-lisp,
> < and --batch-string. Getopt won't recognize -b as equivalent to --batch
> < because it's not a unique abbreviation. And --batch will never be
> < recognized because it's not a unique abbreviation of --batch-lisp and
> < --batch-string.
> <
> < To continue with getopt, we'd have to rename many of the options. I
> < don't see much point in that. People will be astonished that options
> < that used to work no longer do, so we'd violate POLA.
>
> Ray,
> I think that what is need is a hash table to transform short
> options to long.
>
I don't follow you here. How will getopt handle --batch, --batch-lisp,
--batch-string?
I suppose if the match is exact, we don't need a unique abbrev. That
might work.
Ray