Re: [boost] Re: Preliminary submission: command line & config fil e library

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-20 10:00:27

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
>>> As my example above shows, you can use simple syntax
>>> for two arguments and explicit/named for all
>>> others. Take a look at Boost.Graph: it uses named
>>> arguments, but mostly for numerous details such as
>>> "color_map". You don't have to write
>>>
>>>    transitive_closure(graph_param(g));
>> Unfortunately I am not familiar with Boost.Graph, but
>> I believe that in
>> specific case of CLA I would prefer one style for all parameter's modifiers.
>> I do not see how description is more important that optional/required for
>> example. Looking on your example I already confused:
>>
>>>    desc3.add_options()
>>>            ("output,o", "file", "where to send output")
>>>            ("magic", "value", "magic value for the program")
>>>                .default_value("43")
>> What is "file", "value"? Why do I need to supply
>> default value as a string
>> and not 43 itself?
>> What is ,o? Do I need to remember everything that you will reply?
>
> You still need to remember something. For example, your library uses ","
> to separate elements of std::list<...> parameter. Can I
> guess that from the options declaration? Can I guess
> what "multiplicable" is?
>
> The non 100% obvious notation in the above example is
> ",o" for short option and naming the value for option.
>
> With yout proposal it would look something like
>
> parser << named_parameter<>("output") <<
> short_name<>("o") << value_name("file") <<
> description("where to send output")
>
> And it should be repeated for each option.

I don't have very much of use to say, but I like Vladimir's syntax
much better, FWIW.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution