[sword-devel] osis2mod change

Thu Sep 27 15:33:50 MST 2007

Sorry this is escalating and an emotional issue.  I'm not sure why it is
such.

Thanks for all the buzz words.  20 lines added and commited.

DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
>
>On Sep 27, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>
>> DM,
>>
>> I'm sorry.  I never intended to 'stifle community contribution'.  I  
>> was
>> merely trying to make a technical decision.  If you describe to me a
>> benefit of importing 475 lines which we did not write or have any idea
>> if it is crossplatform-- to check 4 command line options to a tool  
>> that
>> is only total 840 lines, then I might consider.
>
>You asked for one. Here is a bunch.
>
>Pros:
>Industry standard command line code.
>Reusable code.
>Becomes a pattern for new utilities, perhaps for existing utilities.
>Stable/proven code.
>POSIX standard.
>Usage is well-known,  understood and used by many programmers.
>Easy to use.
>Easy to maintain.
>Easy to extend.
>Favorable license.
>
>Cons:
>Would need to be proven on various platforms.
>Not invented here.
>
>
>>   But it seems to me we
>> could simple add a 20 line for loop to do the same.  And I'm not  
>> sure we
>> wouldn't still need to add the 20 line for loop if we imported this
>> code.  Checking commandline arguments in C is not that hard.  I don't
>> need a library to do it for me-- especially when our input  
>> arguments are
>> neither lengthy, nor complex.
>
>Yes, checking command line options is not all that hard in C. But why  
>reinvent the wheel?
>
>create a loop that
>checks first characters of argument for - or --,
>look for match against expected set of values
>when match found determine whether it requires an argument,
>if so get the argument and determine how to convert it to an  
>appropriate internal representation
>based upon what was successfully passed determine whether  
>disambiguation needs to occur,
>if so, disambiguate, saving value as appropriate.
>on error, report error and post usage statement.
>
>Granted some of the above needs to be done regardless of which  
>implementation is used.
>
>
>>
>> Please understand I'm only trying to make a technical decision.
>
>Another reason, I have further plans to enhance osis2mod to also take  
>a valid OSIS commentary. I'm anticipating that will require more flag  
>changes. Also, with Chris' change to do normalization, it may be  
>necessary to pass in whether the encoding is UTF-8 or Latin-1.
>
>>
>>         -Troy.
>>
>>
>>
>> DM Smith wrote:
>>> Troy,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the dependency would be. The code is self-contained
>>> and 475 lines. The getsubopt.c is not needed unless getopt.h is  
>>> used as
>>> is. As Chris notes, it can be isolated in the utilities directory not
>>> injecting dependency anywhere. The only other possible dependency is
>>> that of the license. If that is a problem, I will keep looking for a
>>> version with one that is not.
>>>
>>> Please don't stifle community contribution.
>>>
>>> DM
>>>
>>> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>>> I think I would like to conclude this thread with deciding that  
>>>> we are
>>>> not willing to introduce a dependency to iterate simple program  
>>>> args.
>>>> Thank you all for the suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>         -Troy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DM Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How about this implementation, as it is pretty short:
>>>>>
>>>>> Header:
>>>>> http://www.mirbsd.org/cvs.cgi/src/include/getopt.h? 
>>>>> rev=1.1.1.1;content-type=text%2Fplain
>>>>>
>>>>> Code:
>>>>> http://www.mirbsd.org/cvs.cgi/src/lib/libc/stdlib/getopt_long.c? 
>>>>> rev=1.1.1.3;content-type=text%2Fplain
>>>>> http://www.mirbsd.org/cvs.cgi/src/lib/libc/stdlib/getsubopt.c? 
>>>>> rev=1.3;content-type=text%2Fplain
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a BSD license that is compatible with GPL (some BSD are  
>>>>> not) and
>>>>> it is self contained in one file.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- DM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 26, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But Windows lacks it, I believe.
>>>>>> I suppose we could absorb some BSD code, assuming it were  
>>>>>> short, to
>>>>>> achieve the same end, but we can't just #include <unistd.h>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sergio QUEIROZ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> getopt without GNU extensions is a part of the Unix Base  
>>>>>>> Specifications
>>>>>>> and should be available mostly everywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/ 
>>>>>>> getopt.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sergio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le mercredi 26 septembre 2007 à 11:35 -0700, Chris Little a  
>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As DM has said previously, it
>>>>>>>>>> would be really nice to have normal -options which are not  
>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>> dependent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using GNU getopt?
>>>>>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Getopt.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using anything from GNU would be a bad idea. Enduring "the chore
>>>>>>>> involved in parsing typical unix command line options" makes  
>>>>>>>> our code
>>>>>>>> more portable and avoids the need to license additional  
>>>>>>>> libraries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Writing a simple command line option parser isn't especially  
>>>>>>>> difficult
>>>>>>>> or burdensome, anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>