Re: C standard question?

Harald van Dijk <truedfx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:10:07 -0700, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>> On May 11, 2:29 pm, Chris H <ch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >If anything I would imagine
>>> >it makes the implementation more complex if one tries to enforce a
>>> >specific order between char and unsigned.
>>>
>>> I would have thought if tokens are always in a set order it is easier
>>> to parse.
>> 
>> 
>> Imagine you're writing a program that has commandline options, e.g.:
>> 
>>     prog.exe -t -e -f
>> 
>> Now imagine the code you'd have in main for it. You might have some
sort
>> of switch statement to check whether the command line option is 't' or
>> 'e'. If you were to impose a strict order on the commadline options,
>> then you'd have to keep some sort of list of what previous command line
>> options appeared and in what order. Sounds like a useless and
>> inefficient restriction to me.
>
> This is simpler than allowing options to appear in any order.
>
> if (streq(*argv, "-t")) {
>   opt_t = true;
>   argv++;
> }
>
> if (streq(*argv, "-e")) {
>   opt_e = true;
>   argv++;
> }
>
> if (streq(*argv, "-f")) {
>   opt_f = true;
>   argv++;
> }

I do not see how that is any simpler that a for loop with switch where
there is only one argv++.