The following reply was made to PR bin/34074; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Simon Burge <simonb@NetBSD.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: gnats-admin@netbsd.org, netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/34074: remove uneeded case's 
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:49:32 +1000

 new.security@gmail.com wrote:
 
 > >Number:         34074
 > >Category:       bin
 > >Synopsis:       remove uneeded case's
 > >Confidential:   no
 > >Severity:       non-critical
 > >Priority:       low
 > >Responsible:    bin-bug-people
 > >State:          open
 > >Class:          change-request
 > >Submitter-Id:   net
 > >Arrival-Date:   Tue Jul 25 04:20:00 +0000 2006
 > >Originator:     Kevin Massey
 > >Release:        
 > >Organization:
 > >Environment:
 > >Description:
 > many times case '?' is used right before default: and it is not needed.
 > >How-To-Repeat:
 
 Note that getopt(3) returns '?' for an unknown option or error with
 an option that is expecting an argument.  The example in getopt(3)
 has:
 
              case '?':
              default:
                      usage();
 
 
 It's also interesting to note that the SUSv3 (close to Posix) example
 code doesn't even have the "default:" case label and just uses
 "case '?':".
 
 I'm not sure if I consider this PR a bug or not, or if it is a bug
 then should we follow the SUSv3 example?  If anything does change,
 getopt(3) should be updated too to reflect this.
 
 Personally, I'd be tempted to leave things as they are ... I think!
 
 Simon.