[boost] Re: CLA/Config file library opinion

From: Misha Bergal (mbergal_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-28 13:51:13

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:bash4a$prg$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> 1. Terminology
>    Terminology chosen by author is confusing to me. In my understanding:
>       term "parameter" - originated from 'formal parameter", formal
> description of the expected value
>       term "option"       - special case of parameter that describe
> parameters with boolean values
>       term "argument"   - originated from 'actual argument', actual value
> passed as expected value
> The way these terms are used in library does not seems to follow above
> definitions.

>From the general perspective command line consists of the specification of
what to do and how to do that.
In program_options library the arguments are tokens which specify what to do
and options specify how to do that.
The decision of what needs to be an "option" and what an "argument" is
important because the if done right it highlightes the application intended
functionality better

Consider:
copy [options] source destination
cp [OPTION] source directory
and
cp [OPTION]... --target-directory=DIRECTORY SOURCE...

I think the names "arguments" and "options" are as good as anything else.
>From the etymological viewpoint you might be correct,
but the existing usages are very diverse, and denying/redefining them (even
theoretically correctly ) is going to confuse users, not help them.

The name boost::program_options is in line with the existing diverse usage
and not strict clasification, otherwise it should have been probably called
boost::program_options_and_arguments. Given the scope of the library (not
only  CL parsing) I don't know a better name.

Misha