From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-23 00:15:58
Pavol Droba wrote:
> I have tried to use program_options library. I have compiled the library,
> ran the examples and then incorporated the library into one of my
Thanks for putting time into this!
> First and in my opinion the most important one is the matter of
> documentation. I find it very hard to use. Examples are quite good to give
> a nice overview of the library and that's sufficient for a decent start.
> But searching for the details is quite difficult. I would prefer a few
> chapters explaining various components of the library, each followed by a
> reference. Right now I find the documentation rather hard to use. Actuay
> it is very close to browsing through header files and in my opinion this
> is not what the documentation should be about.
I'll keep this in mind. In fact, I plan to convert all the documentation
into BoostBook is the library is accepted. The Doxygen is very nice --- in
fact, it helps very much to keep everything documented. But I found it
rather limiting for writing various "overview" pages. Hope new
documentation will be better.
> * Arguments
> As it was already mentioned here, arguments should have the same
> support as options. Validation and format checking would be appretiated
OK, I'm already thinking about possible approaches.
> * Validation
> Library allows to supports validation and parsing of option parameters,
> but I thinks it is rather limited. It is possible to define
> user-specific behaviour, but it would be helpful, if some common
> formats would be suported.
> For instance:
> * Various integer types ( not just int ) with boundary checking.
> Something like
> paramter<int>( "count", 1, 4, &count ) // 1-Min and 4-Max
It's funny that the very first prototype version had this facility. In
surely can be added to the current version if there's such need.
> * Format specification and checking for string. Regex specification
> of something like scanf would be nice.
> This can be useful for example to check if the parameter is a
Could you clarify a bit how scanf-like specification can work? You mean it
can be used to specify syntax?
> * Environment & Others
> The library tries to unify the access to program options from command
> line and from ini files. This is very nice feature because it is
> removing the need for doing generaly the same thing twice. It would be
> nice if some other sources of paramers could be incorporated as well.
> Particulary the enviromnmet is often used to exchange arguments. Given
> the fact that it consist of a set of pairs "variable=value" it is very
> similar to the ini file and so it souldn't be hard to implement.
Thanks for the suggestion! It's quite right.
> For windows platform the registry comes to play as another source of
Yep, that source was considered as alternative from the very start. I've
seen some project start with a command line, then add config files and then
need registry on Windows. Registry is not yet supported because I wanted to
find out if there's support to the idea of uniform access to all
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk