Getopt and getopts

Both "getopt" and getopts are tools to use for processing and validating shell script arguments. They are similar, but not identical. More confusingly, functionality may vary from place to place, so you need to read the man pages carefully if your usage is more than casual.

Properly handling command line arguments is difficult if you want the usage to be flexible. It's easy to write a script that demands arguments in a specific order; much harder to allow any order at all. It's also hard to allow bunched together arguments or spaced out to be equivalent:

foo -a -b -c
foo -abc
foo -a -c +b
foo -ac +b

These are the problems that getopt(s) are designed to handle. They ease the job considerably, but introduce their own little quirks that your script will need to deal with.

getopt

This is a standalone executable that has been around a long time. Older versions lack the ability to handle quoted arguments (foo a "this won't work" c) and the versions that can do so clumsily. If you are running a recent Linux version, your "getopt" can do that; SCO OSR5, Mac OS X 10.2.6 and FreeBSD 4.4 has an older version that does not.

The simple use of "getopt" is shown in this mini-script:

#!/bin/bash
echo "Before getopt"
for i
do
  echo $i
done
args=`getopt abc:d $*`
set -- $args
echo "After getopt"
for i
do
  echo "-->$i"
done

What we have said is that any of -a, -b, -c or -d will be allowed, but that -c is followed by an argument (the "c:" says that).

If we call this "g" and try it out:

bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc foo
Before getopt
-abc
foo
After getopt
-->-a
-->-b
-->-c
-->foo
-->--

We start with two arguments, and "getopt" breaks apart the options and puts each in its own argument. It also added "--".

Of course "getopt" doesn't care that we didn't use "-d"; if that were important, it would be up to your script to notice and complain. However, "getopt" will notice if we try to use a flag that wasn't specified:

bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc foo -d -f
Before getopt
-abc
foo
-d
-f
getopt: illegal option -- f
After getopt
-->-a
-->-b
-->-c
-->foo
-->-d
-->--

However, if you preface the option string with a colon:

args=`getopt :abc:d $*`

As noted at the beginning, if we give "getopt" arguments containing spaces, it breaks:

bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc "foo bar"
Before getopt
-abc
foo bar
After getopt
-->-a
-->-b
-->-c
-->foo
-->--
-->bar

Not only has "foo bar" become two arguments, but they have been separated. This will be true whether you have the newer version that is capable of handling those arguments or not, because it requires different syntax to handle them. If you do have the newer "getopt", you'd need to write the script differently:

#!/bin/bash
echo "Before getopt"
for i
do
  echo $i
done
args=`getopt -o abc: -- "$@"`
eval set -- "$args"
echo "After getopt"
for i
do
  echo "-->$i"
done

We've added a "-o", changed $* to $@ in quotes, and used an "eval" for the set. With the newer (as is on Linux) version, that works:

bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc "foo bar"
bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc "foo bar"
Before getopt
-abc
foo bar
After getopt
-->-a
-->-b
-->-c
-->foo bar
-->--

However, if you use that script with the older getopt, you get a useless result:

bash-2.05a$ ./gg -abc "foo bar"
Before getopt
-abc
foo bar
After getopt
-->--
-->abc:
-->--
-->-abc
-->foo
-->bar

It's unfortunately easy to get bad results from "getopt" by misquoting or using the wrong syntax. Whenever I've had to use this, I make sure to print out the arguments as I did in the "After getopt" while testing. Once you get it right, using it is easy:

#!/bin/bash
# (old version)
args=`getopt abc: $*`
if test $? != 0
     then
         echo 'Usage: -a -b -c file'
         exit 1
fi
set -- $args
for i
do
  case "$i" in
        -c) shift;echo "flag c set to $1";shift;;
        -a) shift;echo "flag a set";;
        -b) shift;echo "flag b set";;
  esac
done

and the results are as expected.

bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc "foo"
flag a set
flag b set
flag c set to foo
bash-2.05a$ 

However, note the "Usage" section which prints if "getopt" doesn't like what you gave it: an extra flag, or not giving an argument to a flag that requires one. Using the this newest script, we can test some of that:

bash-2.05a$ ./g  -ab  -c 
getopt: option requires an argument -- c
Usage: -a -b -c file
Bash-2.05a$ ./g  -abj foo
getopt: illegal option -- j
Usage: -a -b -c file

But "getopt" is easily fooled:

Forget the expense of flying to New England. Forget hotel and meals costs.
Installation and light training Boston and New England

bash-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c -b foo 
flag a set
flag c set to -b
flag b set

You'd have to deal with that nastiness yourself.

getopts

sh and bash builtin. Easier to use and generally better than getopt, though of course not available in csh-like shells. You shouldn't be using those anyway.

This works rather differently than "getopt". First, because it's a built-in, you usually won't find a separate man page for it, though "help getopts" may give you what you need.

The old "getopt" is called once, and it modifies the environment as we saw above. The builtin "getopts" is called each time you want to process an argument, and it doesn't change the original arguments . A simple script to test with:

#!/bin/bash
while getopts  "abc:" flag
do
  echo "$flag" $OPTIND $OPTARG
done

Trying this produces good results:

bash-2.05a$ ./g -abc "foo"
a 1
b 1
c 3 foo

The "$OPTIND" will contain the index of the argument that will be examined next. If you really needed to, you could tell from that whether arguments were bunched together or given separately, but the real point of it is to let you reset it to re-process the arguments. Try this slightly more complicated version (we'll call it "gg"):

#!/bin/bash
while getopts  "abc:def:ghi" flag
do
  echo "$flag" $OPTIND $OPTARG
done
echo "Resetting"
OPTIND=1
while getopts  "abc:def:ghi" flag
do
  echo "$flag" $OPTIND $OPTARG
done

We'll give it more arguments so that you can observe it at work:

bash-2.05a$ ./gg -a -bc foo -f "foo bar" -h -gde
a 2
b 2
c 4 foo
f 6 foo bar
h 7
g 7
d 7
e 8
Resetting
a 2
b 2
c 4 foo
f 6 foo bar
h 7
g 7
d 7
e 8

The leading ":" works like it does in "getopt" to suppress errors, but "getopt" gives you more help. Back to our first simple version:

sh-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c -b foo
a 2 
c 4 -b

The builtin "getopts" doesn't get fooled: the "-b" is the argument to c, but it doesn't think that b is set also.

If "getopts" encounters an unwanted argument, and hasn't been silenced by a leading ":", the "$flag" in our script above will be set to "?":

bash-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c foo  -l 
a 2 
c 4 foo
./g: illegal option -- l
? 4 
bash-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c         
a 2 
./g: option requires an argument -- c
? 3 

With a leading ":" (while getopts ":abc:d" flag), things are different:

bash-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c 
a 2
: 3 c
bash-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c foo  -l
a 2
c 4 foo
? 4 l
bash-2.05a$ ./g  -a -c
a 2
: 3 c

If an argument is not given for a flag that needs one, "$flag" gets set to ":" and OPTARG has the misused flag. If an unknown argument is given, a "?" is put in "$flag", and OPTARG again has the unrecognized flag.

See also Perl Getopts

Comments /Unix/getopts.html
GetOpts :

Good article! It should also be noted that getopts is part of the Korn shell (ksh) shipped with SCO OSR5 and Unixware.

--BigDumbDinosaur


Ahh.. forgot about ksh! Thanks..

--TonyLawrence

Mon May 16 00:54:44 2005: Subject:   anonymous
Great! thank's a lot!



Tue Jun 7 15:17:15 2005: Subject:   anonymous
Of course, getopts doesn't handle long option names, while getopt does.



Tue Jun 7 18:03:59 2005: Subject:   BigDumbDinosaur
Of course, getopts doesn't handle long option names, while getopt does.

So don't use long option names. Besides, typing long option names gets annoying in a big hurry. If you need to specify more than 52 options (that 26 LC and 26 UC for those who are not familiar with UNIX shell case sensitivity), how about using a config file? <Grin>



Mon Jun 20 23:42:37 2005: Subject: Awesome!   dannyman
Okay, but after I loop through getopts, how do I reset the $@ stuff in bash so that I can read in subsequent arguments? For a thing like:



./foo.sh -a -b -c file.conf arg1 arg2 arg3 ...

Wed Jun 22 20:02:16 2005: Subject:   TonyLawrence
By doing OPTIND=1




Fri Aug 5 22:51:11 2005: Subject:   anonymous
or maybe :

shift $((OPTIND-1))

Fri Sep 23 20:34:42 2005: Subject: getopt is bad   anonymous
(your comments go here)


While I understand it's never going away, getopt() is a really bad, bad, bad piece of code. This is the part of it in C I hate:
extern int optind;
extern char *optarg;

I detest functions like this that use hard coded externs that make programmers not older than dirt scratch their head and say , what the heck?

---

Control Spam and Viruses

Run your own mailserver

---

Fri Sep 23 22:36:23 2005: Subject:   BigDumbDinosaur
I detest functions like this that use hard coded externs that make programmers not older than dirt scratch their head and say, "what the heck?"

Whaddya mean "older than dirt?" I completely resemble that remark.

Seriously, library functions like getopt are part of the glue that holds a coherent UNIX API together. I have a big problem with some of the programming youngsters who, rather than understand and work with standard library functions that we old dinosaurs have used for decades, want to come up with something different just because they don't understand the existing function or the associated variable names (optind makes perfect sense to me -- it's option index). It's that sort of narrow thinking that has resulted in some of the language abortions we have today, such as Java and C++.

BTW, just how would you implement a library function like getopt and provide identical functionality, without any use of "hard coded externs"?




Fri Oct 28 17:36:01 2005: Subject: Get the rest from getopts   anonymous
The comments above asked about getting the rest of the args from getopts and suggested setting OPTIND. I hacked out something, and I think it's a better way, something like this:

 

max=0 

while getopts "eprvh" flag 

do 

  case $flag in 

   ... (omitted) 

  esac 

   

  if [ $OPTIND -gt $max ] 

  then 

    #echo "setting max to $OPTIND" 

    max=$OPTIND 

  fi 

done 

 

shift $max 

 

# now $@ just has what's left 

# note this only works if you program is called with options first like 

# gg -evp arg1 arg2 

# and not  

# gg -ev arg1 -ph arg2 

# 

# Hope this helps - Ken 

Thu Nov 17 14:21:40 2005: Subject:   anonymous
In your case statement, just use

shift $((OPTIND-1)); OPTIND=1

after you've processed a certain option (and it's argument).



bartX

Thu Dec 14 20:12:02 2006: Subject:   Dave
Found this very useful, thanks!



Thu Dec 14 23:45:42 2006: Subject:   BigDumbDinosaur
Naturally, all of this getopts maneuvering is thoroughly documented in a 1000 places (including here), and buried somewhere in that documentation (What!!!??? I have to actually read this crap???) is the little part about using

shift $((OPTIND-1)); OPTIND=1

to reset the option index to a new "ground zero" setting. Obviously, the anonymous person who pointed this out *has* read the documentation. <Grin>



Wed Jan 23 16:59:10 2008: Subject:   anonymous


Thanks for this article -- it's a shame that the bash info file is so example free. I could have never figured out what was meant from that alone.

Fri Feb 8 06:56:52 2008: Subject:   anonymous


Great article, very useful! Thank you a lot!

---

Unix and Linux Support

---

Wed May 21 13:51:22 2008: Subject: need help   anonymous


while getopts fdagrACi: option
do
case $option in
f )
#echo "f"
FLAG_FIH=Y
;;
d )
#echo "d"
FLAG_DH=Y
;;
a )
#echo "a"
FLAG_AH=Y
;;
g )
#echo "g"
FLAG_GH=Y
;;
r )
#echo "r"
FLAG_RP=Y
;;
esac
done

This works, but now I want to add the options r3), r4) and r5) instead only option r). I tried to add new case options, but (obviously?) it won't work, it gives me the message for the command 'teste_rating.sh -r3' :
"teste_rating.sh[540]: getopts: 3 bad option(s)"
Anyone gives me some help? I'm new at this shell scripts programming (has you have already noticed)
Best regards

Wed May 21 14:05:01 2008: Subject:   anonymous


I think you want to look at the ":" options above to say that -r takes an argument, and then parse that argument.

Fri Jun 27 06:19:23 2008: Subject:   thierryescola


très bon article qui m'a bien aidé.
merci beaucoup

Thierry

Add your comments

Why no "Digg this!" etc.?

Enter your email address for automatic notification of new posts here
(be sure to whitelist 'feedburner.com' if you use spam filtering)

78255-080107-699684-48

Have you tried Searching this site?

Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.

Publishing your articles here