Re: Command line option handling - Interest?

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-05-12 15:10:04

--- In boost_at_y..., "Sven M. Hallberg" <pesco_at_g...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:21:44PM -0700, Gary Powell wrote:
> > The question was more of should we be able to handle things like
> > 
> > -IntegerRangeValues 0 99999
> > where I would need the parser to grab the next two integer 
arguments.
> > I could live with
> > -IntegerRangeValues (0,9999)
> > As it does a space denote the end of an argument or does the 
flag "-"
> > constrain it.
> 
> I'm definately voting for the latter, because letting the handler 
parse
> options is too blurry. A major part of the design relies on the 
fact that an
> option has exactly one string argument (which might be empty in 
cases).
> Loosening that rule would also intermangle parsing with processing 
which I
> have a feeling would be a Bad Thing.
> 
> 
> > Also I've seen arguments that used a "+" (Not that I'm advocating 
it but, it
> > might make it more general purpose if the flag character was user 
definable.
> > On the otherside my KISS is kicking me to say no, you get "-" and 
that's it.
> 
> Agreed. The only point I see is that under MS-DOS "/" is (kind of) 
common. I
> am absolutely _not_ familiar with DOS/Windows programs, but as far 
as I
> remember most serious apps use "-" while "--" is never seen, right? 
That way I
> don't even see support for "/" as important, comments?

'/' is standard DOS/Windows, while '-' is often an alternative syntax 
supported.

> BTW, what is KISS anyway?

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Bill Kempf