 |
 |
David B. Serafini writes: > > > But what I miss in F90 is something like getarg() and argcount().... > > It has been "on the list" for f2k for some time. At the last meeting, > > it just got voted (unanimously, if I recall correctly) up one "level" > > of priority, from the "do if time is available" top the "minor > > technical enhancement" category. > > Is this the defacto-standard Unix GETARG/IARGC syntax, or the uglier > POSIX syntax, or something completely different? Oh darn. I just sent off a reply to the private copy before noticing that this was also on the public list. I'll make a short reply here also. The formal vote didn't specify - it just authorizes committee time to debate the question. My personal opinion is that something based on my proposal will likely pass. One could legitimately note that I might have a biased viewpoint on the matter. My proposal looks somewhat like iargc/getarg (with different names, though, to avoid conflicting with existing code) in the simple cases. My proposal does have optional arguments for extra posix functionality, but I'd expect them to be rarely used. That's why they are optional - so that they won't "intrude" on the simple cases. No, I didn't propose anything simillar to the old posix spellings. I can't ever seem to type those names correctly, possibly related to the fact that I can't pronounce them (and whenever I try, everyone near me gives me nasty looks and goes to the washroom to clean up). -- Richard Maine [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%