Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> writes:
> +parse_option () {
> + local opt="$@"
I do not think there is any context in which var="$@" makes sense in
shell script (var="$*" is understandable, though).
Did you mean opt=$1 here?
> +# Parse options while taking care to leave $@ intact, so we will still
> +# have all the original command line options when executing the test
> +# script again for '--tee' and '--verbose-log' below.
The phrase "below" no longer makes much sense after moving lines
around, does it?
> +store_arg_to=
> +prev_opt=
> +for opt
> +do
> + if test -n "$store_arg_to"
> + then
> + eval $store_arg_to=\$opt
> + store_arg_to=
> + prev_opt=
> + continue
> + fi
> +
> + case "$opt" in
> + --*)
> + parse_option "$opt" ;;
> + -?*)
> + # stacked short options must be fed separately to parse_option
Are you calling concatenated short options, e.g. "-abc", as
"stacked"? It sounds like a very unusual phrasing, at least to me.
> + for c in $(echo "${opt#-}" | sed 's/./& /g')
> + do
> + parse_option "-$c"
> + done
> + ;;
> + *)
> + echo "error: unknown test option '$opt'" >&2; exit 1 ;;
> + esac
>
> prev_opt=$opt
> done
I am personally not very enthused (the line counts vs benefit does
not feel so great), but as long as it works correctly and
maintainable, I won't complain too much.
