>>8
I think you're not understanding correctly, so I will iterate through the highlights of this thread.
>>1 asserts that a single string, instead of an argv is better, because ``[you have to] parse them anyway''
>>3 proceeds to chide
>>1 for his ignorance. The rather correct assertion made by
>>3 is that it's pointless having to recreate a parser when it's done automatically by the c runtime (ie. before main gets called)
Here is where the confusion is introduced.
>>5 (which is the OP) claims that there will be no reinvention of the wheel, so to speak, as one could do ``parsing with a library.'' The next sentence here is:
``Think about it, if it was a single string, people would be more inclined to use something like getopt''
This statement does not make sense. If it were a single string, why would people be more inclined to use getopt? getopt requires not a single string, but an array of strings (ie. argv), representing command line options. In fact, getopt was designed with argc/argv in mind.
tl;dr:
>>1,5 has never used getopt in her life. They are most likely a troll, and as such, it is highly recommende to proceed with sage.