From: thierno camara (thiernocamara2003_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-05 04:54:45
> I thought I'd mention... Along with config macro defs I started
> extracting all the Config rewrite macros
> into a separate library
If you're rewriting the config macros, one change I'd strongly
recommend is a strict separation between macros that are to be defined
by the users and macros that are defined in config.hpp. If the
documentation says that a macro should be defined by users, then it
should not be defined by any of the boost libraries.
2008/4/4, Bruno Lalande <bruno.lalande_at_[hidden]>:
> Yesterday I had to write a program that compiles 2 forms of
> executables: a standalone version that takes its parameters from the
> command line, and another one that serves as a CGI program and thus
> takes exactly the same parameters but from stdin (POST method). I
> naturally chose Boost.ProgramOptions for the first one, and did the
> job by myself for the second one. I finally realized that I was doing
> fundamentally the same thing as what a ProgramOptions parser basically
> does: parsing a name=value series of variables, checking unknown
> values, assign them to variables, etc... plus a few formatting work to
> handle URL format specificities.
> So in the end I was wondering if a "cgi_query_parser" would be
> appreciated as an addition to the parsers already present in
> Boost.ProgramOptions? I can directly see the benefits inside my own
> program since the 2 versions would only differ on one line of code.
> >From a more general point of view, it could be a simple way to have a
> CGI support somewhere in Boost.
> If such a thing can be interesting, I can take a few time to implement it.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- In god we trust. Thierno Camara
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk