Am 27.05.2005 um 11:34 schrieb Stephen Deasey:
Where we left the discussion last time is how to deal with type
checking. Boolean switches and range values are basically just forms
of type checking.
Hmm.... what I understood here was data-type checking as in
integer/string type of thing.
Under boolean support, I actually ment *absence* or *existence*
of the option. I do not know how I could achieve this now, unless
I say:
ns_parseargs {{-boolean 0} args}
but this is also half-baked.
OK, lets think about type-checking. I would definitely say that
boolean type-checking (as described above) should be in.
The same for option-lists. Those two are most commonly found
and needed. Other type of checking would not be needed.
So, if I say:
ns_parseargs {-a args}
then anything what is given to "-a" should be accepted as is.
Something like "string is ..." checking should be left to the
programmer.
I believe that underlying C-api already does the above, or?
Depending on how type checking is implemented, then the syntax of an
arg specification may change. You may or may not end up pulling your
hair out later if you change all your code to use ns_proc now... :-)
Right. Lets fix this now. We can talk about the syntax when/if we
agree on the scope of the implemented type-checking (as above).
Deal?
Zoran
