From: Jonathan Graehl (jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 13:43:17
>here's another possibility:
> value<type>(&variable, "filename")->......
>something like that was in the pre-review version, with the difference that
>the value name was also used to specify flags, e.g "filename?" would mean
>the value is optional.
Yes ... I like this best.
>> Also, I'm not sure why 0-argument items couldn't appear in a config
>> file. I declare the number of arguments used by options before I parse
>> the config file, after all.
>Because the current config parser, systantically, requires that everything
>specified there has a value. If you specify that an option accepts no
>explicit value, it can't be present in config file.
OK, your statement was with reference to the current config parser ;)
A newer parser could recognize the end of an option name first, then
interrogate the option to see if it takes an argument, then if it does,
expect to parse a "= value".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk