Parsing options in the form "-C8"

[irenezerafa]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Tuesday, November 16th, 2021 at 8:40 PM, Chris Elvidge 
<celvidge001@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/11/2021 08:03 pm, irenezerafa wrote:
>
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 16th, 2021 at 7:51 PM, Chet Ramey chet.ramey@case.edu 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/16/21 2:43 PM, irenezerafa wrote:
> > >
> > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, November 16th, 2021 at 7:34 PM, Chet Ramey 
> > > > chet.ramey@case.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 11/16/21 2:28 PM, irenezerafa via wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I want to parse options in the following way "-C8", with the option 
> > > > > > being -C and the value being `8`. What can
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do to implement the functionality?
> >
> > > > > Use `getopts'.
> >
> > > > I do not want to go through the getopts or getopt routes. Primarily 
> > > > because they are too simplistic
> > > >
> > > > for my tasks. I am allowing both short and long options in my code, as 
> > > > well as optional values for
> > > >
> > > > options, multiple values per option.
> >
> > > OK, this is a good example. I'm going to take one shot here at an
> > >
> > > explanation of why you don't get the help you feel you should. Then I'm
> > >
> > > out.
> >
> > > First, adding requirements as people give you solutions, thereby changing
> > >
> > > the problem space, doesn't encourage people to help you. Why should they
> > >
> > > solve the problem as you've described it, only to have you move the
> > >
> > > goalposts? Fully describe the problem and all of its requirements, up
> > >
> > > front.
> >
> > Have not move the goalpost, the question is still about parsing "-C8"
> >
> > and store the value. Was answering your question why I am not going with
> >
> > the getopts or getopt route.
> >
> > > Second, folks on this list like to see some evidence that you've actually
> > >
> > > tried to solve the problem yourself. Maybe post some code you've written
> > >
> > > that attempts to do that (but be prepared for criticism). Without posting
> > >
> > > your code attempts, the impression is that you'd like to be spoon-fed the
> > >
> > > answer.
> >
> > This is how I handle "-C 8" and "-C=8".
> >
> > ("-C") # for -C 8
> >
> > cnt="$2"
> >
> > shift 2
> >
> > ;;
> >
> > ("-C=") # for -C=8
> >
> > cnt="${1#=}"
> >
> > shift
> >
> > ;;
>
> So, given your original question, how does either of these constructs
> help you handle -C8?
>

I could do with ("-C"*) which would have to be included after a ("-C="*)