From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-24 11:01:54
>> Ok, let me start with a caveat: ignoring unknown options can be
>> program --something 10 --known_option
>> Now, is "10" a value of unknown option or positional option? To remove
>> the problems all unknown options must use this form:
>> which may be problem, or may not, depending on your situation. What do
>> you think?
> I think your example actually brings up several issues.
> First, I was actually a bit surprised to see in the docs that the
> library does not require positional parameters to follow all
> non-positional parameters. The normal unix use cases typically expect
> options first, then positional parameters. If the user wants to "end"
> the options early, then a "--" is inserted as an option that
> specifically says to end option processing and begin positional
> The ambiguity in your example is actually caused by the interpretation
> of positional options.
It's an explicit decision to allow positional options everywhere. I can't
count the number of times when I run
cvs ci foo
it failed and I then runned
cvs ci foo -F /tmp/commit_message_left_by_failed_invocation
to find that options are not allowed after 'foo'.
>> > So, at this stage, I think it requires an interface change to
>> > support this option.
>> The detail::cmdline constructor actually has 'allow_unregisted'
>> parameter, which is intended to help with this. However, no non-detail
>> interface allows to specify. Frankly, I don't know if I forgot about
>> this or just decided to wait for a user to request this feature
>> Adding a new method to the 'common_command_line_parser' to set
>> 'allow_unregistered' flag and then tweaking
>> common_command_line_parser::run should do the trick? Opinions?
> Maybe. I am trying to think in terms of bigger picture use case
> support. I think we need the following...
> 1. Ability to tell the parser to be in "strict" mode or something like
> that, where it assumes options come first, and "positional options"
> follow. This will remove all ambiguity in parsing options, and AFAIK,
> it is consistent with just about all conventions.
As I mention above, I'm not sure this is right approach.
> 2. Currently, a custom parser can pass two kinds of information; either
> "I do not recognize this option" or "I recognize this option, and here
> is a name/value pair that I want you to use as a substitute for the
> option." It needs to be enhanced so it can also pass "I recognize this
> option, and you should ignore it."
I agree, and it will be implemented.
> 3. Some way for the main cmdline parser to do all its parsing, and
> return all "unrecognized" stuff, without an error. This way, parsers
> can be chained. For example, parsing in such a manner...
> program --something 10 --known_option
> would resognize --known_option and I can then as for "parsed" options
> and get a vector of strings representing the parsed options. I should
> also be able to get a vector of strings of "unparsed" options.
program --something 10 11 --known_option
In this case, after parsing know options you'll get
--something 10 11
which can be passed to another parser, which will eat
and will leave one token, which will be considered positional options. Seems
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk