Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [ANN] CLI 1.1.0 released
From: Maurizio Vitale (maurizio.vitale_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-16 10:50:30

>>>>> "Boris" == Boris Kolpackov <boris_at_[hidden]> writes:

    Boris> Hi Rutger, Rutger ter Borg <rutger_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> look interesting, but I must admit that I was confused by the
>> name. To me, a CLI is either the user interface or the
>> interpreter, whereas I think you are covering something that has
>> to do with command-line arguments or program options.

    Boris> One of the expansions of the CLI acronym is Command-Line
    Boris> Interface[1].

    Boris> [1]

But if I understand your project, it is not a CLI, rather a compiler
that takes a description of command line options/flags and _generates_
code that handle the command line interface, hence the confusion.

>> Are you considering to pursue inclusion in Boost

    Boris> There is already a "solution" for this problem in Boost
    Boris> (program_options) though the implementations are very
    Boris> different ("library" vs "compiler" approach). So I am not
    Boris> sure if there is interest in an alternative.

Probably not, although I can only speak for myself.

The present boost library has the nice property of being C++. If one
wanted to go the script route, there're dozens of alternatives.

Which brings the question: why exactly this keep being advertised on the
boost mailing lists? Most people here follows freshmeat and sourceforge
announcements and I don't think we want to see here posts on every and
each script out there that happens to generate C++ code.

Best regards,


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at