From: Gary Powell (Gary.Powell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-10 10:36:23
> Is there interest in Boost for an option processor
> and is it right to consider Bill's library for use in it (I
> haven't looked into it all too deep, I'm basically asking for the current
> state of discussion on it).
> Here's a synopsis of my processor: One creates an option_processor object
> registers supported options with it, giving the following information:
> - short/long ways for denominating the option on the command line
On the short way, will you require this to be specified by the programmer,
or will it automatically create a short flag from the long flags?
> - a description
> - a handler function object
You might also consider using the any_function stuff as well.
> Once that is done, the processor can be asked about an info table about
> known options as frequently seen on programs' "--help" screens. Finally of
> course it can be given argc/argv and it will parse it for options and call
> appropriate handlers, throwing exceptions on errors (missing arguments,
This is very handy to have and if done so that "help" is required when you
register the option it will remind programmers to fill in at least a token
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk