Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230710181237.GD257945@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:57:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > + if (!force_nonopt && place[0] == '-' && place[1]) > + { > + if (place[1] != '-' || place[2]) > + break; > + > + optind++; > + force_nonopt = true; > + continue; > + } > > The first if looks good to me, but the second if is a bit hard to get the meaning at a glance. "!(place[1] == '-' && place[2]== 0)" is easier to read *to me*. Or I'm fine with the following structure here. I'd readily admit that it's tough to read these lines. I briefly tried to make use of strcmp() to improve readability, but I wasn't having much luck. I'll give it another try. >> if (!force_nonopt ... ) >> { >> if (place[1] == '-' && place[2] == 0) >> { >> optind+; >> force_nonopt = true; >> continue; >> } >> break; >> } > > (To be honest, I see the goto looked clear than for(;;)..) Okay. I don't mind adding it back if it improves readability. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: