[BusyBox] re: long args in bb_getopt_ulflags()

[Vladimir N. Oleynik]

Paul,

> i thought of doing this, but for some reason i assumed that
> preserving 8-bit cleanliness was a goal in the new millenium. :-)
> guess i was wrong.

I have not absolutely understood this idea,
but discrimination of people with eight-bit codings depresses.

Also it would be possible to use symbols of less ' ',
it will solve a problem with UTF coding.

> do people really think this is okay?  to clarify:  the code vodz
> has quoted uses getopt characters with the high bit set to
> represent the short-option version of options which have only
> long-option representations.  presumably if one could enter those
> characters (octal 203 and 213) on the command line, one would get
> the --header and --passive-ftp functionality.

Hmm. Why not?
All of us equally cannot use any combinations of the symbols
beginning with a symbol a minus.
In fact differently either any option is activated
or we shall receive the message on a mistake.


> [ p.s.  and please -- in the above example, why on earth would someone
> write the constant as "139" in one place, and as "\213" only 10
> lines later???  that's just dumb.  can we make the codebase any
> harder to read?  sheesh.  ]

:-))
Don`t know.


--w
vodz