From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 01:56:25
Neal D. Becker wrote:
> It's a small point, but here's my opinion. You say something like: "If
> option requires a value and following -<number> doesn't match an option,
> then parse it as an argument".
> I would suggest "If option requires a value then parse *any* following
> string, including -<number> as a value, unconditionally".
So the different would be that
where both "a" and "b" are allowed option and "-a" requires a value,
will be reported as invalid value of option "-a" not as missing value on the
command line? Why do you think that's better?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk