Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/19/21 10:36 AM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 14:06:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Just nitpicks. Like allowing `@NamedArgument` without parentheses. Or
using `@NamedArgument("b", "banana", "ban")` instead of
`@NamedArgument(["b", "banana", "ban"])`
I did array because I think it makes sense to have
`@NamedArgument(names, help_text)` as a shortcut for
`@(NamedArgument(names).HelpText(help_text))` for CLI.
Just going to put this here, instead of a PR, but if you change your
parameter type to:
```d
NamedArgument(string[] names...);
```
Now, these all work:
```d
NamedArgument("banana")
NamedArgument("b", "banana", "ban")
NamedArgument(["b", "banana", "ban"])
```
If you want to support an array + extra string, then you can add:
```d
NamedArgument(string[] names, string helptext);
```
And it shouldn't conflict with the first overload.
Though, I like the explicit HelpText better (that's what I'd use, even
if the convenient overload is there). UDAs that don't spell out what
they are for are harder to review.
-Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 14:06:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Just nitpicks. Like allowing `@NamedArgument` without
parentheses. Or using `@NamedArgument("b", "banana", "ban")`
instead of `@NamedArgument(["b", "banana", "ban"])`
I did array because I think it makes sense to have
`@NamedArgument(names, help_text)` as a shortcut for
`@(NamedArgument(names).HelpText(help_text))` for CLI.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/19/21 6:54 AM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:16:01 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Prepare for some PRs, I already see ways to make this better ;)
Don't you mind sharing your ideas?
Just nitpicks. Like allowing `@NamedArgument` without parentheses. Or
using `@NamedArgument("b", "banana", "ban")` instead of
`@NamedArgument(["b", "banana", "ban"])`
All this is possible. It takes some effort on the library side, but
makes things pleasant to use.
I'll know more when I start using it.
-Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 03:49:46 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote: Very interesting! I was looking for something similar recently, will definitely give it a try! One thing that it'd be interested to see would be subcommand support. Check what DUB is doing for example. This is definitely in my todo list
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:16:01 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: OMG this looks awesome! I will switch my code to using it... Glad to hear that my work is useful! Prepare for some PRs, I already see ways to make this better ;) Don't you mind sharing your ideas?
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: Hi everyone, I'm happy to announce that I've published a CLI argument parsing library - [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse). It's been around for some time already so please take a look and provide your feedback if you haven't done so. The reasoning to create one more CLI parsing library is that the existing libraries do not provide enough flexibility in parsing that I'm looking for and/or they depend on other libraries. As a result `argparse` supports wide variety of data types including enums, callbacks and arrays as well as a fully customized argument parsing. It also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library. Since it's in active development (activeness depends on my availability of course), I have few things to do before making the first major release so stay tuned and/or contribute if you'd like to. Very interesting! I was looking for something similar recently, will definitely give it a try! One thing that it'd be interested to see would be subcommand support. Check what DUB is doing for example.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/17/21 6:02 PM, Andrey Zherikov wrote: On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 15:03:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Having done a lot of stuff with serialization and UDAs, this turns into a mess if you have multiple systems (serialization is really what you are doing here) using the same structs. So really, you are likely to have this `Params` struct be distinctly for parameter parsing. It's OK to have requirements such as expecting all items to be serialized by default and in a default way. Structs without UDA are now supported starting version `0.4.0`. I also added this use case as a basic into "Getting started" section in readme. OMG this looks awesome! I will switch my code to using it... Prepare for some PRs, I already see ways to make this better ;) -Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 15:03:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Having done a lot of stuff with serialization and UDAs, this turns into a mess if you have multiple systems (serialization is really what you are doing here) using the same structs. So really, you are likely to have this `Params` struct be distinctly for parameter parsing. It's OK to have requirements such as expecting all items to be serialized by default and in a default way. Structs without UDA are now supported starting version `0.4.0`. I also added this use case as a basic into "Getting started" section in readme.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/13/21 9:13 PM, Andrey Zherikov wrote: On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 00:35:11 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote: Not sure how much change there is over "classic" gflags, but https://abseil.io/docs/cpp/guides/flags is what google now uses internally. Abseil version suggests not to put flags into multiple .cpp files: - `Allows distributed declaration and definition of flags, though this usage has drawbacks and should generally be avoided` - `Prefer to define flags only in the file containing the binary’s main() function` - `Prefer to reference flags only from within the file containing the binary’s main() function` So I'm a bit confused about supporting this use case Yeah, there is a problem with doing this the D way, and that's with module constructors. You can run into cycles. When I implemented database migrations in my application, I set it up so I could run module ctors that set up each migration near the location where I'm defining the data structures, but I ended up having to put them all into a dedicated `migrations` module to avoid the cycles. D could definitely use a way to specify a no-dependency module ctor/dtor. -Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/13/21 7:36 PM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 16:24:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The point is that I shouldn't have to tell the library the name of
something that I've already given a name to.
Having them named differently on the command line than the actual
field name should still be a possibility (and required in some cases,
e.g. the `enum` case above), but honestly, the `Params` struct exists
solely to accept command line parameters, there's no compelling need
to use alternate names for the command line and the field name. If the
library automatically does the right thing by default, then your code
becomes simpler and more beautiful.
Not to detract from your library, because I think it's an awesome
design to model using structs (one I use all the time), but the API
developer in me frowns at lack of DRY. Try to focus on requiring the
smallest amount of machinery/attributes possible. Every time you
require extraneous pieces to get things to work, it adds another place
where errors/confusion can happen.
I got your point. Omitting the name is good suggestion and I'll add this.
Regarding the detecting all members and treating them as an arguments, I
see one issues so far: the struct might have other members that are not
used in CLI (it can be even functions).
Having done a lot of stuff with serialization and UDAs, this turns into
a mess if you have multiple systems (serialization is really what you
are doing here) using the same structs. So really, you are likely to
have this `Params` struct be distinctly for parameter parsing. It's OK
to have requirements such as expecting all items to be serialized by
default and in a default way.
Consider the example when the member is renamed but the struct still
provides the old name for backward compatibility:
```d
struct T
{
string name;
@property string label() const { return name; }
}
pragma(msg, __traits(allMembers, T)); // tuple("name", "label")
```
Various ways to solve this:
1. Have an `@ignore` uda
2. UFCS `label`
3. make `label` private (and ensure you check for that in your library code)
So to implement your suggestion correctly, `argparse` should provide a
way to opt-out specific members from CLI.
Possibly. Another possibility is to use WebFreak's idea and just tag
them with `@NamedArgument` without a name, then you can opt-in via
`@NamedArgument:` at the top (or put in a scope).
The way I approach serialization is "how would I serialize this thing if
I wrote the code manually?" and use that as the default implementation.
Then if you want to do things different from the default, use UDAs for that.
In addition to that, each CLI argument usually has its own help text so
in most cases each member will have an UDA with this text which makes
opt-out approach mush less useful. So it sill look like this at the end:
```d
struct T
{
@help("First name")
string firstName;
@help("Last name")
string lastName;
@skip
@property string fullName() const { return firstName~" "~lastName; }
}
```
It's not the UDAs, it's requiring in the UDA a repeat of the name that's
already introspectable. I also prefer having a default handling for
something so UDAs are not needed, but this is not as important.
Also, I'll note for your example, having an explanation for "firstName"
to mean "First Name" is another thing that reasonable people can
disagree on, but IMO, I would just let the name speak for itself.
-Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 13:51:50 UTC, Paul Backus wrote: On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 13:37:29 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: Another thing is that I couldn't use `allMembers` without using the module name explicitly, because: `__traits(isModule, __MODULE__)` returns `false` and `__traits(allMembers, __MODULE__)` gives `"mymodule" can't have members, "mymodule" must evaluate to either a module, a struct, an union, a class, an interface or a template instantiation` You can use `__traits(allMembers, mixin(__MODULE__))`. How nice! Thanks!
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 13:37:29 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: Another thing is that I couldn't use `allMembers` without using the module name explicitly, because: `__traits(isModule, __MODULE__)` returns `false` and `__traits(allMembers, __MODULE__)` gives `"mymodule" can't have members, "mymodule" must evaluate to either a module, a struct, an union, a class, an interface or a template instantiation` You can use `__traits(allMembers, mixin(__MODULE__))`.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 02:09:35 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote: Yeh, it's definitely a mixed bag. It can be very convenient to be able to put the flag right near point of use without having to do any plumbing. But sometimes it can be frustrating given that "flags" are essentially a single global namespace that people don't always realize is a global namespace. Quite annoying when you go to add something like a "--start_time" flag and find that some random .cc file in a library already defines that flag for their own purposes. --bb I might be wrong but AFAIK D program doesn't have global namespace - it's split between modules. Another thing is that I couldn't use `allMembers` without using the module name explicitly, because: `__traits(isModule, __MODULE__)` returns `false` and `__traits(allMembers, __MODULE__)` gives `"mymodule" can't have members, "mymodule" must evaluate to either a module, a struct, an union, a class, an interface or a template instantiation`
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 6:15 PM Andrey Zherikov via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 00:35:11 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 5:30 PM Andrey Zherikov via > > Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 19:26:49 UTC, Andrei > >> Alexandrescu wrote: > >> > Cool! > >> > > >> > One note - gflags > >> > (https://opensource.google/projects/gflags) allows modules > >> > to define their own flags in a decentralized manner. I've > >> > always thought this is a major feature missing from > >> > std.getopt, but never got around to it. It would be great if > >> > argparse would add such support. > >> > >> This is an interesting approach. I'm not a fan of it but I'll > >> take a look at whether this can be supported. > >> > > > > Not sure how much change there is over "classic" gflags, but > > https://abseil.io/docs/cpp/guides/flags is what google now uses > > internally. > > > > --bb > > Abseil version suggests not to put flags into multiple .cpp files: > - `Allows distributed declaration and definition of flags, though > this usage has drawbacks and should generally be avoided` > - `Prefer to define flags only in the file containing the > binary’s main() function` > - `Prefer to reference flags only from within the file containing > the binary’s main() function` > > So I'm a bit confused about supporting this use case > Yeh, it's definitely a mixed bag. It can be very convenient to be able to put the flag right near point of use without having to do any plumbing. But sometimes it can be frustrating given that "flags" are essentially a single global namespace that people don't always realize is a global namespace. Quite annoying when you go to add something like a "--start_time" flag and find that some random .cc file in a library already defines that flag for their own purposes. --bb
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 00:35:11 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote: On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 5:30 PM Andrey Zherikov via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 19:26:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Cool! > > One note - gflags > (https://opensource.google/projects/gflags) allows modules > to define their own flags in a decentralized manner. I've > always thought this is a major feature missing from > std.getopt, but never got around to it. It would be great if > argparse would add such support. This is an interesting approach. I'm not a fan of it but I'll take a look at whether this can be supported. Not sure how much change there is over "classic" gflags, but https://abseil.io/docs/cpp/guides/flags is what google now uses internally. --bb Abseil version suggests not to put flags into multiple .cpp files: - `Allows distributed declaration and definition of flags, though this usage has drawbacks and should generally be avoided` - `Prefer to define flags only in the file containing the binary’s main() function` - `Prefer to reference flags only from within the file containing the binary’s main() function` So I'm a bit confused about supporting this use case
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 5:30 PM Andrey Zherikov via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 19:26:49 UTC, Andrei > Alexandrescu wrote: > > Cool! > > > > One note - gflags (https://opensource.google/projects/gflags) > > allows modules to define their own flags in a decentralized > > manner. I've always thought this is a major feature missing > > from std.getopt, but never got around to it. It would be great > > if argparse would add such support. > > This is an interesting approach. I'm not a fan of it but I'll > take a look at whether this can be supported. > Not sure how much change there is over "classic" gflags, but https://abseil.io/docs/cpp/guides/flags is what google now uses internally. --bb
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 19:26:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Cool! One note - gflags (https://opensource.google/projects/gflags) allows modules to define their own flags in a decentralized manner. I've always thought this is a major feature missing from std.getopt, but never got around to it. It would be great if argparse would add such support. This is an interesting approach. I'm not a fan of it but I'll take a look at whether this can be supported.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 18:39:47 UTC, SealabJaster wrote: On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: ... Guess you got fed up with me not updating JCLI :3 Looks great either way, I really like what you've done with the `.Parse!().PreValidate!()` chaining, looks clean. I actually started with the research how this can be done and here is a result.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 16:24:52 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
The point is that I shouldn't have to tell the library the name
of something that I've already given a name to.
Having them named differently on the command line than the
actual field name should still be a possibility (and required
in some cases, e.g. the `enum` case above), but honestly, the
`Params` struct exists solely to accept command line
parameters, there's no compelling need to use alternate names
for the command line and the field name. If the library
automatically does the right thing by default, then your code
becomes simpler and more beautiful.
Not to detract from your library, because I think it's an
awesome design to model using structs (one I use all the time),
but the API developer in me frowns at lack of DRY. Try to focus
on requiring the smallest amount of machinery/attributes
possible. Every time you require extraneous pieces to get
things to work, it adds another place where errors/confusion
can happen.
I got your point. Omitting the name is good suggestion and I'll
add this.
Regarding the detecting all members and treating them as an
arguments, I see one issues so far: the struct might have other
members that are not used in CLI (it can be even functions).
Consider the example when the member is renamed but the struct
still provides the old name for backward compatibility:
```d
struct T
{
string name;
@property string label() const { return name; }
}
pragma(msg, __traits(allMembers, T)); // tuple("name", "label")
```
Another example is when the struct has additional functions
convenient for the users so it's not clear whether `void foo()`
is a CLI flag or just a convenient function.
So to implement your suggestion correctly, `argparse` should
provide a way to opt-out specific members from CLI.
In addition to that, each CLI argument usually has its own help
text so in most cases each member will have an UDA with this text
which makes opt-out approach mush less useful. So it sill look
like this at the end:
```d
struct T
{
@help("First name")
string firstName;
@help("Last name")
string lastName;
@skip
@property string fullName() const { return firstName~"
"~lastName; }
}
```
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 2021-10-13 7:27, Andrey Zherikov wrote: Hi everyone, I'm happy to announce that I've published a CLI argument parsing library - [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse). It's been around for some time already so please take a look and provide your feedback if you haven't done so. The reasoning to create one more CLI parsing library is that the existing libraries do not provide enough flexibility in parsing that I'm looking for and/or they depend on other libraries. As a result `argparse` supports wide variety of data types including enums, callbacks and arrays as well as a fully customized argument parsing. It also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library. Since it's in active development (activeness depends on my availability of course), I have few things to do before making the first major release so stay tuned and/or contribute if you'd like to. Cool! One note - gflags (https://opensource.google/projects/gflags) allows modules to define their own flags in a decentralized manner. I've always thought this is a major feature missing from std.getopt, but never got around to it. It would be great if argparse would add such support.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: ... Guess you got fed up with me not updating JCLI :3 Looks great either way, I really like what you've done with the `.Parse!().PreValidate!()` chaining, looks clean. Also happy to see your penchant for documentation is still holding strong!
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 16:24:52 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/13/21 11:50 AM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 14:36:30 UTC, Steven [...]
No, it's not a confusion about `unused`. The `array` parameter
has the same issue.
I meant that for named parameters, one shouldn't have to
attribute them for them to be considered part of the parameters.
e.g. (to replace your current code):
```d
struct Params
{
// Positional arguments are required by default
@PositionalArgument(0) // override the default of a named
argument
string name;
// Named argments are optional by default
string unused = "some default value";
// Numeric types are converted automatically
int num;
// Boolean flags are supported
bool flag;
// Enums are also supported
enum Enum { unset, foo, boo };
@NamedArgument("enum") // required since enum is a keyword
Enum enumValue;
// Use array to store multiple values
int[] array;
// Callback with no args (flag)
void cb() {}
// Callback with single value
void cb1(string value) { assert(value == "cb-value"); }
// Callback with zero or more values
void cb2(string[] value) { assert(value ==
["cb-v1","cb-v2"]); }
}
```
The point is that I shouldn't have to tell the library the name
of something that I've already given a name to.
Having them named differently on the command line than the
actual field name should still be a possibility (and required
in some cases, e.g. the `enum` case above), but honestly, the
`Params` struct exists solely to accept command line
parameters, there's no compelling need to use alternate names
for the command line and the field name. If the library
automatically does the right thing by default, then your code
becomes simpler and more beautiful.
Not to detract from your library, because I think it's an
awesome design to model using structs (one I use all the time),
but the API developer in me frowns at lack of DRY. Try to focus
on requiring the smallest amount of machinery/attributes
possible. Every time you require extraneous pieces to get
things to work, it adds another place where errors/confusion
can happen.
-Steve
This should probably rather be:
```d
struct Params
{
// Positional arguments are required by default
@PositionalArgument(0) // override the default of a named
argument
string name;
// Named argments are optional by default
@NamedArgument
string unused = "some default value";
// Numeric types are converted automatically
@NamedArgument
int num;
// Boolean flags are supported
@NamedArgument
bool flag;
// Enums are also supported
enum Enum { unset, foo, boo };
@NamedArgument("enum") // required since enum is a keyword
Enum enumValue;
// Use array to store multiple values
@NamedArgument
int[] array;
// Callback with no args (flag)
@NamedArgument
void cb() {}
// Callback with single value
@NamedArgument
void cb1(string value) { assert(value == "cb-value"); }
// Callback with zero or more values
@NamedArgument
void cb2(string[] value) { assert(value ==
["cb-v1","cb-v2"]); }
}
```
as otherwise the definition could be ambiguous (like are the
parameters positional with automatic count or named by default?)
If you don't like the repetition you could also then make it
`@NamedArgument { [all my variables] }` But I'm not a fan of
having everything included even without UDA
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/13/21 11:50 AM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 14:36:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
One nitpick -- you should be able to opt in using the name of the
field member instead of having to write `@NamedArgument`. e.g. your
`string unused` parameter requires a `@NamedArgument("unused")` which
seems unnecessary.
I think `unused` word confuses a bit. I meant the argument that is
skipped in command line so it has a default value (`"some default value"`).
So having this is totally fine:
```d
struct Params
{
string s;
@NamedArgument("num")
int n;
}
```
I'll rename `unused` to remove this confusion.
No, it's not a confusion about `unused`. The `array` parameter has the
same issue.
I meant that for named parameters, one shouldn't have to attribute them
for them to be considered part of the parameters.
e.g. (to replace your current code):
```d
struct Params
{
// Positional arguments are required by default
@PositionalArgument(0) // override the default of a named argument
string name;
// Named argments are optional by default
string unused = "some default value";
// Numeric types are converted automatically
int num;
// Boolean flags are supported
bool flag;
// Enums are also supported
enum Enum { unset, foo, boo };
@NamedArgument("enum") // required since enum is a keyword
Enum enumValue;
// Use array to store multiple values
int[] array;
// Callback with no args (flag)
void cb() {}
// Callback with single value
void cb1(string value) { assert(value == "cb-value"); }
// Callback with zero or more values
void cb2(string[] value) { assert(value == ["cb-v1","cb-v2"]); }
}
```
The point is that I shouldn't have to tell the library the name of
something that I've already given a name to.
Having them named differently on the command line than the actual field
name should still be a possibility (and required in some cases, e.g. the
`enum` case above), but honestly, the `Params` struct exists solely to
accept command line parameters, there's no compelling need to use
alternate names for the command line and the field name. If the library
automatically does the right thing by default, then your code becomes
simpler and more beautiful.
Not to detract from your library, because I think it's an awesome design
to model using structs (one I use all the time), but the API developer
in me frowns at lack of DRY. Try to focus on requiring the smallest
amount of machinery/attributes possible. Every time you require
extraneous pieces to get things to work, it adds another place where
errors/confusion can happen.
-Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 14:36:30 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
One nitpick -- you should be able to opt in using the name of
the field member instead of having to write `@NamedArgument`.
e.g. your `string unused` parameter requires a
`@NamedArgument("unused")` which seems unnecessary.
I think `unused` word confuses a bit. I meant the argument that
is skipped in command line so it has a default value (`"some
default value"`).
So having this is totally fine:
```d
struct Params
{
string s;
@NamedArgument("num")
int n;
}
```
I'll rename `unused` to remove this confusion.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On 10/13/21 7:27 AM, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm happy to announce that I've published a CLI argument parsing library
- [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse). It's been around
for some time already so please take a look and provide your feedback if
you haven't done so.
The reasoning to create one more CLI parsing library is that the
existing libraries do not provide enough flexibility in parsing that I'm
looking for and/or they depend on other libraries. As a result
`argparse` supports wide variety of data types including enums,
callbacks and arrays as well as a fully customized argument parsing. It
also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library.
Since it's in active development (activeness depends on my availability
of course), I have few things to do before making the first major
release so stay tuned and/or contribute if you'd like to.
I was literally just thinking about how something like this would be
useful yesterday. It's amazing when the universe just listens to me and
provides what I was hoping for!
One nitpick -- you should be able to opt in using the name of the field
member instead of having to write `@NamedArgument`. e.g. your `string
unused` parameter requires a `@NamedArgument("unused")` which seems
unnecessary.
-Steve
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 12:11:03 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:59:06 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote: On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: [...] It also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library. [...] if you want to drop the dependency on std.typecons : Nullable you could use https://code.dlang.org/packages/expected, where you can additionally return error values with instead of returning null on error. Doesn't cast to bool but can check for .hasError which is more explicit. This will break "doesn't depend on anything besides std" unfortunately. well... if you ask me that expected package should be part of the stdlib, it has decent download statistics too :p At least would be better than creating your own Result type if you do decide to drop Nullable for something with error information I think
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:59:06 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote: On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: [...] It also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library. [...] if you want to drop the dependency on std.typecons : Nullable you could use https://code.dlang.org/packages/expected, where you can additionally return error values with instead of returning null on error. Doesn't cast to bool but can check for .hasError which is more explicit. This will break "doesn't depend on anything besides std" unfortunately.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: [...] It also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library. [...] if you want to drop the dependency on std.typecons : Nullable you could use https://code.dlang.org/packages/expected, where you can additionally return error values with instead of returning null on error. Doesn't cast to bool but can check for .hasError which is more explicit.
Re: New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 11:27:40 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: Hi everyone, I'm happy to announce that I've published a CLI argument parsing library - [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse). It's been around for some time already so please take a look and provide your feedback if you haven't done so. [...] Oh, that's pretty nice actually
New library: argparse, for parsing CLI arguments
Hi everyone, I'm happy to announce that I've published a CLI argument parsing library - [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse). It's been around for some time already so please take a look and provide your feedback if you haven't done so. The reasoning to create one more CLI parsing library is that the existing libraries do not provide enough flexibility in parsing that I'm looking for and/or they depend on other libraries. As a result `argparse` supports wide variety of data types including enums, callbacks and arrays as well as a fully customized argument parsing. It also doesn't depend on anything besides the standard library. Since it's in active development (activeness depends on my availability of course), I have few things to do before making the first major release so stay tuned and/or contribute if you'd like to.
