Re: [boost] Is there any interest in command line interpreter class templates?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in command line interpreter class templates?
From: Stirling Westrup (swestrup_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-26 12:11:22

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Joshua Boyce
<raptorfactor_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> One of the primary reasons that I (and others) avoid Boost.ProgramOptions is
> that it doesn't 'natively' support wide strings (wide strings are simply
> static_cast to narrow strings with no regard to localization or
> internationalization). How does this library compare in that respect?

Another reason for avoiding Boost.ProgramOptions is that it doesn't
support command lines that interleave options and arguments, where the
ordering of options and arguments is important. How does this library
handle such cases?

-- 
Stirling Westrup
Programmer, Entrepreneur.
https://www.linkedin.com/e/fpf/77228
http://www.linkedin.com/in/swestrup
http://technaut.livejournal.com
http://sourceforge.net/users/stirlingwestrup