supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Robert Bruce Findler
(25 Sep 2002 21:20 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
sperber@xxxxxx
(26 Sep 2002 07:10 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments Anthony Carrico (26 Sep 2002 13:52 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Robert Bruce Findler
(26 Sep 2002 13:58 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Anthony Carrico
(26 Sep 2002 14:05 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
sperber@xxxxxx
(26 Sep 2002 14:12 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments
Tom Lord
(26 Sep 2002 17:22 UTC)
|
Re: supporting multi argument commandline arguments Anthony Carrico 26 Sep 2002 13:55 UTC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] wrote: > What precisely is the problem with doing the splitting > post-arg-processing, i.e. doing the equivalent of > > --long-name="first-arg second-arg" > > from the shell? That's how autoconf/configure operates, for instance. Yes, in case anyone missed my list of questions/comments about multi argument options in the "cmdline.ss library in PLT" thread, I suggested this idiom there too. At this point, I think the primary argument against the common idiom is the possibility of implementing the cmdline.ss interface in terms of args-fold, but it has been revealed that cmdline.ss diverges from POSIX/GNU guidelines in other ways as well (creating further incompatibilities), so I don't think it is realistic to pursue multi argument options for the sake of cmdline.ss. Is there any other good argument for considering multi arguments options in the face of the sub-parsing idiom? I'm leaning against extending args-fold to support them. -Anthony Carrico