Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 09:30:57PM +, Adam Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
[...]
> One approach you might consider is a hybrid too, where you have the
> big struct you build out of the individual udas.
>
> So you work on the big one but you do getBig!decl and it loops through
> the members of thebig struct and sees if the same-typed UDAs are on
> decl. If so, it loads them in, if not, it leaves default values.
[...]
Yeah, that's what I thought too. So you could have something like this:
struct SmallUDA {}
struct AnotherSmallUDA {}
struct AggregateUDAs {
bool hasSmall;
bool hasAnotherSmall;
static typeof(this) opCall(T)() {
AggregateUDAs result;
hasSmall = hasUDA!(T, SmallUDA);
hasAnotherSmall = hasUDA!(T, AnotherSmallUDA);
return result;
}
}
void processUDAs(T)() {
// Look ma! No need to sprinkle hasUDA everywhere
enum aggreg = AggregateUDAs!T();
...
static if (aggreg.hasSmall) { ... }
...
static if (aggreg.hasAnotherSmall) { ... }
...
}
@SmallUDA
@AnotherSmallUDA
struct MyInputType { ... }
processUDAs!MyInputType();
T
--
Why did the mathematician reinvent the square wheel? Because he wanted to
drive smoothly over an inverted catenary road.
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Friday, 18 March 2022 at 18:21:46 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: I use UDAs extensively in my project and I've historically been doing the multiple-UDA approach you describe. Upon seeing argparse a few months back I started rewriting it to use a single UDA, and I found it allowed for a simpler implementation (and not the other way around). The immediate gains boiled down to that I could now pass what is essentially a context struct around at CTFE instead of keeping track of multiple variables. Default values are also much easier to manage with much fewer `hasUDA`s sprinkled everywhere. One approach you might consider is a hybrid too, where you have the big struct you build out of the individual udas. So you work on the big one but you do getBig!decl and it loops through the members of thebig struct and sees if the same-typed UDAs are on decl. If so, it loads them in, if not, it leaves default values. Then the user can write it either way and you always process it simpler.
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:21:46PM +, Anonymouse via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 19:07:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > Using independent, orthogonal UDAs may make option specification > > using your module easier to read. For example, from your docs: [...] > > It might also simplify your implementation by having more smaller, > > independent pieces for each UDA instead of a single complex UDA that > > handles everything. > > I use UDAs extensively in my project and I've historically been doing > the multiple-UDA approach you describe. Upon seeing argparse a few > months back I started rewriting it to use a single UDA, and I found it > allowed for a simpler implementation (and not the other way around). > > The immediate gains boiled down to that I could now pass what is > essentially a context struct around at CTFE instead of keeping track > of multiple variables. Default values are also much easier to manage > with much fewer `hasUDA`s sprinkled everywhere. Hmm, interesting indeed! I should experiment with both approaches to do a fairer comparison. T -- Век живи - век учись. А дураком помрёшь.
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Friday, 18 March 2022 at 19:09:27 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote: On Friday, 18 March 2022 at 18:21:46 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: One drawback is documentation; adrdox does *not* like these kinds of UDAs. It is on my list to run big UDAs through the auto-formatter at some point pretty soon to help with this. I just have a big work project I'm wrapping up first. Sweet!
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Friday, 18 March 2022 at 18:21:46 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: One drawback is documentation; adrdox does *not* like these kinds of UDAs. It is on my list to run big UDAs through the auto-formatter at some point pretty soon to help with this. I just have a big work project I'm wrapping up first.
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 19:07:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Using independent, orthogonal UDAs may make option
specification using your module easier to read. For example,
from your docs:
struct T {
@(NamedArgument
.PreValidation!((string s) { return s.length > 1 && s[0] ==
'!'; })
.Parse!((string s) { return s[1]; })
.Validation !((char v) { return v >= '0' && v <= '9';
})
.Action !((ref int a, char v) { a = v - '0'; })
)
int a;
}
could be rewritten with multiple UDAs as:
struct T {
@NamedArgument
@PreValidation!((string s) { return s.length > 1 && s[0] ==
'!'; })
@Parse!((string s) { return s[1]; })
@Validation !((char v) { return v >= '0' && v <= '9'; })
@Action!((ref int a, char v) { a = v - '0'; })
int a;
}
It might also simplify your implementation by having more
smaller, independent pieces for each UDA instead of a single
complex UDA that handles everything.
I use UDAs extensively in my project and I've historically been
doing the multiple-UDA approach you describe. Upon seeing
argparse a few months back I started rewriting it to use a single
UDA, and I found it allowed for a simpler implementation (and not
the other way around).
The immediate gains boiled down to that I could now pass what is
essentially a context struct around at CTFE instead of keeping
track of multiple variables. Default values are also much easier
to manage with much fewer `hasUDA`s sprinkled everywhere.
One drawback is documentation; adrdox does *not* like these kinds
of UDAs.
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 03:06:44AM +, Andrey Zherikov via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to share that I've published a new version of
> [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse) library. It's
> got some new features since my [first
> announcement](https://forum.dlang.org/post/zjljbdzfrtcxfiuzo...@forum.dlang.org)
> as well as some bug fixes:
> - Support of the usage without UDAs
> - Custom grouping of arguments on help screen
> - Mutually exclusive arguments
> - Mutually dependent arguments
> - Subcommands
[...]
Very comprehensive library! Quite similar in concept to my own argument
parsing module that also uses a struct + UDAs for specifying options.
(Though your module is more advanced; mine doesn't handle things like
subcommands.)
I notice that some of your UDAs are pretty complicated, which makes me
wonder if you're aware that it's possible to attach multiple UDAs to a
single declaration. For example, in my own argument parsing module, I
have a UDA @Alt for specifying an alternative name (usually a
single-character shorthand) to an option, as well as a UDA @Help for
attaching help text to an option. Here's an example of both being used
for the same declaration:
struct Options {
@Alt("n") // accept `-n` in addition to `--name`
@Help("Name of the object to generate")
string name;
}
Using independent, orthogonal UDAs may make option specification using
your module easier to read. For example, from your docs:
struct T {
@(NamedArgument
.PreValidation!((string s) { return s.length > 1 &&
s[0] == '!'; })
.Parse!((string s) { return s[1]; })
.Validation !((char v) { return v >= '0' && v <= '9';
})
.Action !((ref int a, char v) { a = v - '0'; })
)
int a;
}
could be rewritten with multiple UDAs as:
struct T {
@NamedArgument
@PreValidation!((string s) { return s.length > 1 && s[0] ==
'!'; })
@Parse!((string s) { return s[1]; })
@Validation !((char v) { return v >= '0' && v <= '9'; })
@Action!((ref int a, char v) { a = v - '0'; })
int a;
}
It might also simplify your implementation by having more smaller,
independent pieces for each UDA instead of a single complex UDA that
handles everything.
Also, some of your function literals could use shorthand syntax, e.g.:
.PreValidation!((string s) { return s.length > 1 && s[0] == '!'; })
could be written as:
.PreValidation!(s => s.length > 1 && s[0] == '!')
T
--
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I understand. --
Benjamin Franklin
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 13:09:53 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote: On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 03:06:44 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: In case if anyone has thoughts about what feature is missed in the library, I'm open to the suggestions. A v1.0.0 tag. A roadmap, examples, tutorials are already good. But without a commitment to SemVer stability, it's hard to recommend a v0.0.x package to people. v1.0.0 will be definitely there as soon as I'm done with all major features. I want to minimize breaking changes after v1.
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
Daaamn. I planned to make a decent library for argument parsing, but apparently it is already there. This is such a nice work! I'm going to try this out and give some feedback :) On Mon, 14 Mar 2022, 03:10 Andrey Zherikov via Digitalmars-d-announce, < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to share that I've published a new version of > [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse) library. > It's got some new features since my [first > announcement]( > https://forum.dlang.org/post/zjljbdzfrtcxfiuzo...@forum.dlang.org) as > well as some bug fixes: > - Support of the usage without UDAs > - Custom grouping of arguments on help screen > - Mutually exclusive arguments > - Mutually dependent arguments > - Subcommands > > Enjoy it! > > Regarding the future, I have some items in my todo list and here > are few things I will work on next: > - Improve subcommand support (for example, default command) > - Shell completion > > In case if anyone has thoughts about what feature is missed in > the library, I'm open to the suggestions. > > -- > Andrey >
Re: argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 03:06:44 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote: In case if anyone has thoughts about what feature is missed in the library, I'm open to the suggestions. A v1.0.0 tag. A roadmap, examples, tutorials are already good. But without a commitment to SemVer stability, it's hard to recommend a v0.0.x package to people.
argparse version 0.7.0 - a CLI parsing library
Hi everyone, I'd like to share that I've published a new version of [argparse](https://code.dlang.org/packages/argparse) library. It's got some new features since my [first announcement](https://forum.dlang.org/post/zjljbdzfrtcxfiuzo...@forum.dlang.org) as well as some bug fixes: - Support of the usage without UDAs - Custom grouping of arguments on help screen - Mutually exclusive arguments - Mutually dependent arguments - Subcommands Enjoy it! Regarding the future, I have some items in my todo list and here are few things I will work on next: - Improve subcommand support (for example, default command) - Shell completion In case if anyone has thoughts about what feature is missed in the library, I'm open to the suggestions. -- Andrey
