From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-05-11 07:27:04
--- In boost_at_y..., "Sven M. Hallberg" <pesco_at_g...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in the process of writing a library for processing command
line options.
> I've noticed there is a library for command line option _parsing_
by Bill
> Kempf in "the vault" by Bill Kempf. As the last part currently
missing from my
> implementation is the option parser (POSIX getopt proved
insufficent as many
> can probably imagine) I am looking into using that library.
Therefore I ask
> two questions: Is there interest in Boost for an option processor
(details
> following below), and is it right to consider Bill's library for
use in it (I
> haven't looked into it all too deep, I'm basically asking for the
current
> state of discussion on it).
My library was discussed a bit, but went no further. I think it
would be very beneficial to base higher level parsers (such as you
describe below) off this one or one similar. See the message
archives for discussions about why what I developed was a pull
concept and not a push concept to understand why I think this lower
level concept is needed whether or not the higher level concepts are
provided as well. Basically, what you describe below won't allow for
some command line parsing styles that may be wanted.
> Here's a synopsis of my processor: One creates an option_processor
object and
> registers supported options with it, giving the following
information:
> - short/long ways for denominating the option on the command line
> - a description
> - a handler function object
The message archives will also point you to an existing library that
works very similar to what you describe here (minus the handler
function object). It may help you evaluate your own design.
Bill Kempf