Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think merits
a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some improvements
for getopt which are mostly internal changes rather than API changes (
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/272 ), but I th
On 2011-09-28 21:44, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think merits
a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some improvements
for getopt which are mostly internal changes rather than API changes (
https://github.com/D-Prog
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.260.1317239096.26225.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think
> merits
> a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some
> improvements
> for getopt which are mostly
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 13:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I like it. I wonder if having the GetOpt struct's defaults being different
> from getopt() might be confusing. Other than that, I can't think of any
> issues with any of it, unless there was some other aspect of the API we'd
> want to
On 28-09-2011 21:44, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think merits
a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some improvements
for getopt which are mostly internal changes rather than API changes (
https://github.com/D-Prog
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 22:44:29 +0300, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Personally, I think that it's a significant improvement given that it's
getting
rid of the mutable module-level variables and better encapsulating
getopt's
functionality, but I think that there's some value in discussing the idea
On 9/28/11 12:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think merits
a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some improvements
for getopt which are mostly internal changes rather than API changes (
https://github.com/D-Prog
+1
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think
> merits
> a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some
> improvements
> for getopt which are mostly internal changes rather than API changes (
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145699), a écrit :
>> and the aforementioned pull request adds another for an array separator.
>> Mutable module/global variables are generally considered to be bad design
>> (though they're sometimes necessary), and I'm very much inclined to hav
On 9/29/11 2:11 AM, Christophe wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145699), a écrit :
and the aforementioned pull request adds another for an array separator.
Mutable module/global variables are generally considered to be bad design
(though they're sometimes necessary), a
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 00:40:44 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/28/11 12:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Okay. I have a suggestion for an improvement to std.getopt that I think
> > merits a bit of discussion. There's currently a pull request with some
> > improvements for getopt which
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.290.1317291489.26225.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> 5. Assuming that we were creating std.getopt from scratch, there would be
> _zero_ benefit in having any of its configuration options be at the module
> level. There is a definite argument for
On 9/29/11 3:17 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 00:40:44 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Why?
1. Mutable globals are generally considered to be bad practice. As you
yourself have stated before, Phobos should be an example of good software
practices in D. Having mutable g
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:41:33 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
It would be quite abnormal to run getopt multiple times in the same app
with different configurations. So in this case using globals is
_better_, not worse.
How about this: your program uses a logging component. You pass the
On 9/29/11 8:49 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:41:33 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
It would be quite abnormal to run getopt multiple times in the same
app with different configurations. So in this case using globals is
_better_, not worse.
How about this: your progr
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j623kg$rfi$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create an
> object in order to call a simple function
>
Not really:
OptGetter.optGet(...);
Even that "OptGetter." can be eliminated (parhaps afte
On 9/29/11 9:25 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j623kg$rfi$1...@digitalmars.com...
The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create an
object in order to call a simple function
Not really:
OptGetter.optGet(...);
Even that "OptG
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145742), a écrit :
>> 4. If you need to run getopt multiple times - particularly if you need to run
>> it with different configurations each time - it's definitely cleaner to do
>> that
>> when you can just use a different GetOpt instance in eac
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j626io$10pu$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 9/29/11 9:25 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
>> news:j623kg$rfi$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create
>>> a
On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And the rest of us feel the same way about our arguments.
Argumentum ad populum :o).
Andrei
On 9/29/11 9:53 AM, Christophe wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145742), a écrit :
4. If you need to run getopt multiple times - particularly if you need to run
it with different configurations each time - it's definitely cleaner to do that
when you can just use a diff
On 9/29/11 6:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And the rest of us feel the same way about our arguments.
Argumentum ad populum :o).
Errm … no? Argumentum ad populum would e.g. be »and the rest of us
believe that your arguments are inferior, Andrei,
On 9/29/11 10:15 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 9/29/11 6:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And the rest of us feel the same way about our arguments.
Argumentum ad populum :o).
Errm … no? Argumentum ad populum would e.g. be »and the rest of us
belie
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j629g0$15tr$2...@digitalmars.com...
> On 9/29/11 10:15 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On 9/29/11 6:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And the rest of us feel the same way about our arguments.
>>>
>>> Arg
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create
> an object in order to call a simple function, for the vague benefit of
> tenuous corner cases.
I specifically suggested that there still be a free getopt fun
On 9/29/11 11:07 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j629g0$15tr$2...@digitalmars.com...
On 9/29/11 10:15 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 9/29/11 6:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 9:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And the rest of us feel the same w
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:55:39 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Sloppy maintainers may also take the GetOpt object by reference, change
its state, and pass it back.
See my suggestion earlier in this thread.
--
Best regards,
Vladimirmailto:vladi...@thecybershado
On 29.09.2011 21:01, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 9:53 AM, Christophe wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145742), a écrit :
4. If you need to run getopt multiple times - particularly if you
need to run
it with different configurations each time - it's definitel
On 9/29/11 11:18 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create
an object in order to call a simple function, for the vague benefit of
tenuous corner cases.
I specifically sugg
On 9/29/11 11:24 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:55:39 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Sloppy maintainers may also take the GetOpt object by reference,
change its state, and pass it back.
See my suggestion earlier in this thread.
You mean this:
> Another idea:
>
> G
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I don't think it would improve the module design, even without
> considering cost of change. It just adds useless clutter.
Well, out of those who have responded in this thread, you're the only one who
thinks that. Everyone else ha
On 9/29/11 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I don't think it would improve the module design, even without
considering cost of change. It just adds useless clutter.
Well, out of those who have responded in this thread, you're th
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 9/29/11 11:18 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 08:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> The proposed change adds net negative value. It forces people to create
> >> an object in order to call a simple function, for the vague benefit of
>
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 13:40 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/29/11 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I don't think it would improve the module design, even without
> >> considering cost of change. It just adds usel
On 2011-09-29 22:40, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I don't think it would improve the module design, even without
considering cost of change. It just adds useless clutter.
Well, out of t
On 9/29/11 11:35 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-09-29 22:40, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I don't think it would improve the module design, even without
considering cost of change. It
"Jonathan M Davis" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145800), a écrit :
> Honestly, I would vote against any code being included in Phobos which had any
> mutable global variables without a _very_ good reason. And I really don't see
> any such reason here.
Look closely at the new benchmark proposal
foobar , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145799), a écrit :
> Does getopt (btw, awful name)
getopt is the name of a Posix function to read option arguments in many
langages. I don't think it should be changed. People trying to
accomplish this task will be looking for a function with that name.
-
On 2011-09-30 08:51, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 11:35 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-09-29 22:40, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/29/11 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I don't think it would improve the module de
On Friday, September 30, 2011 13:07:55 Christophe wrote:
> foobar , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145799), a écrit :
> > Does getopt (btw, awful name)
>
> getopt is the name of a Posix function to read option arguments in many
> langages. I don't think it should be changed. People trying to
> acc
On 9/30/11 9:01 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, September 30, 2011 13:07:55 Christophe wrote:
foobar , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145799), a écrit :
Does getopt (btw, awful name)
getopt is the name of a Posix function to read option arguments in many
langages. I don't think it shou
On Friday, September 30, 2011 09:37 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/30/11 9:01 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2011 13:07:55 Christophe wrote:
> >> foobar , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145799), a écrit :
> >>> Does getopt (btw, awful name)
> >>
> >> getopt is the name
"Jonathan M Davis" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145845), a écrit :
>>
>> ahem
>
> ??? Please elaborate.
Let me guess: He considers their is not enough improvement to justify a
breaking change. It's quite obvious, since he considers this is a
negative improvement.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, my suggestion is that we create a GetOpt struct which contains all of the
> options for getopt, and we make getopt a member function of that struct.
Making it a struct gives you a design flexibility that really is an
illusion. Most p
On Friday, September 30, 2011 10:30 Christophe wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145845), a écrit :
> >> ahem
> >
> > ??? Please elaborate.
>
> Let me guess: He considers their is not enough improvement to justify a
> breaking change. It's quite obvious, since he consid
On 9/30/11 10:55 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, September 30, 2011 10:30 Christophe wrote:
"Jonathan M Davis" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:145845), a écrit :
ahem
??? Please elaborate.
Let me guess: He considers their is not enough improvement to justify a
breaking change. It's
"Jose Armando Garcia" wrote in message
news:mailman.317.1317404375.26225.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> I prefer if we take std.getopt one step further (or create another)
> and make it completely global. Don't allow the parsing of anything but
> the command line
Are you serious? Don't allow
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:j651l8$7m7$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Jose Armando Garcia" wrote in message
> news:mailman.317.1317404375.26225.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>
>> I prefer if we take std.getopt one step further (or create another)
>> and make it completely global. Don'
On 2011-09-30 19:39, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, my suggestion is that we create a GetOpt struct which contains all of the
options for getopt, and we make getopt a member function of that struct.
Making it a struct gives you a desig
On 9/30/11 12:23 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-09-30 19:39, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan M
Davis wrote:
So, my suggestion is that we create a GetOpt struct which contains
all of the
options for getopt, and we make getopt a member function of that str
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jose Armando Garcia" wrote in message
> Are you serious? Don't allow it? Why? What benefit could that possibly
> provide? It makes perfect sence to think that there may be legitimate reason
> to use a commandline parser on something othe
Am 30.09.2011, 20:28 Uhr, schrieb Nick Sabalausky :
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:j651l8$7m7$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Jose Armando Garcia" wrote in message
news:mailman.317.1317404375.26225.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I prefer if we take std.getopt one step further (or create a
On 2011-10-01 00:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/30/11 12:23 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-09-30 19:39, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan M
Davis wrote:
So, my suggestion is that we create a GetOpt struct which contains
all of the
options for getopt,
"Marco Leise" wrote in message
news:op.v2no2ljx9y6...@dslb-088-070-130-181.pools.arcor-ip.net...
>Am 30.09.2011, 20:28 Uhr, schrieb Nick Sabalausky :
>>
>> It's like applying fascism to API design.
>
>You know, this will eventually end up where all discussions on the
>internet end. ;)
>
Saskatc
"Jose Armando Garcia" wrote in message
news:mailman.321.1317434277.26225.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Jose Armando Garcia" wrote in message
>> Are you serious? Don't allow it? Why? What benefit could that possibly
>> provide? It m
On 10/1/11 5:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-01 00:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/30/11 12:23 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-09-30 19:39, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Jonathan M
Davis wrote:
So, my suggestion is that we create a GetOpt struct wh
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j679o0$1hdm$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/1/11 5:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>> I forgot to mention that I don't want the order of the arguments to
>> matter. I should be possible to write:
>>
>> "foo bar -b -a"
>>
>> Or at least it should be poss
On 10/1/11 12:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j679o0$1hdm$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 10/1/11 5:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I forgot to mention that I don't want the order of the arguments to
matter. I should be possible to write:
"foo bar -b -a"
Or
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:j67s2l$9h2$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/1/11 12:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
>> news:j679o0$1hdm$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> On 10/1/11 5:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I forgot to mention that I do
On 10/1/11 4:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[snip]
Not buying it. Sorry.
Andrei
On 10/2/11 1:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/1/11 4:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[snip]
Not buying it. Sorry.
Andrei
Sorry Andrei, not buying your opinion either.
David
And how exactly did this get us any further? :P
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 01:35:09 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On 10/2/11 1:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 10/1/11 4:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Not buying it. Sorry.
> >
> > Andrei
>
> Sorry Andrei, not buying your opinion either.
>
> David
>
>
>
> And how exac
On 2011-10-02 02:31, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 01:35:09 David Nadlinger wrote:
On 10/2/11 1:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/1/11 4:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[snip]
Not buying it. Sorry.
Andrei
Sorry Andrei, not buying your opinion either.
David
And
On Monday, October 03, 2011 08:43:37 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> How about starting to review modules that existed before we started with
> the review process. But I guess many will complain that the time can be
> better spent elsewhere.
I think that for the most part where there's really an issue wi
On 9/29/2011 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And yes, that's an argument by ad populum
(or whatever the exact name is), but what's considered "clutter" is
subjective. Yes, the improvement would be relatively minor, but so's the cost
of the change, and while it doesn't necessarily show that you'
On Monday, October 03, 2011 21:20:48 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 11:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > And yes, that's an argument by ad populum
> > (or whatever the exact name is), but what's considered "clutter" is
> > subjective. Yes, the improvement would be relatively minor, but so's t
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:j6e1k9$2p9u$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Steve Jobs is famously successful for paring down feature sets to the bare
> minimum that works for 90% of the users, and then doing those features
> very well.
>
Steve Jobs is famous for handling the bare minimum th
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:j6e836$2gj$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
> news:j6e1k9$2p9u$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Steve Jobs is famously successful for paring down feature sets to the
>> bare minimum that works for 90% of the users, and then doing t
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:j6e1k9$2p9u$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> 2. Once a feature is there, it stays forever. It's very hard to judge how
> many people rely on a feature that turns out in hindsight to be baggage.
If people are relying on it, is it really baggage?
> It's why I hav
On 10/3/2011 11:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Steve Jobs is famous for handling the bare minimum that works for 90% of
*average Joe* users and saying "Fuck off" to everyone and everything else.
That's why all his products are shit.
On the other hand, D makes no attempt at a "walled garden". Nob
On 10/4/2011 1:06 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:j6e1k9$2p9u$1...@digitalmars.com...
2. Once a feature is there, it stays forever. It's very hard to judge how
many people rely on a feature that turns out in hindsight to be baggage.
If people are relying on i
On 2011-10-04 11:02, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/4/2011 1:06 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:j6e1k9$2p9u$1...@digitalmars.com...
2. Once a feature is there, it stays forever. It's very hard to judge
how
many people rely on a feature that turns out in hindsight t
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:20:48 +0100, Walter Bright
wrote:
I've been only a casual user of std.getopt, barely scratching the
surface of what it can do. But I do have a few general thoughts on this.
One of the very hardest things in design is knowing when to say "no" to
a new feature. The fea
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:20:48 +0100, Walter Bright
wrote:
I've been only a casual user of std.getopt, barely scratching the
surface of what it can do. But I do have a few general thoughts on this.
One of the very hardest things in design is knowing when t
On 10/04/11 09:09, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wrote:
In this particular case, because these std,.getopt options are global
variables, building something which uses them, or std.getopt will
introduce side effects to other uses of std.getopt. Meaning the current
design
I'm don't often use getopt just for the fact that I can't use
single-dash arguments like '-release'. DMD uses this syntax, and so to
other tools. It's not a big deal thanks to D's fantastic
string-manipulation abilities, so I just roll my own. All I need is a
switch(args) statement.
On 2011-10-04 17:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/04/11 09:09, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wrote:
In this particular case, because these std,.getopt options are global
variables, building something which uses them, or std.getopt will
introduce side effects to othe
On 10/4/2011 2:55 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
They at least removed export templates.
True. I know there were some adamant defenders of it in the past, but I don't
know if anyone defended it this time. A difference from trigraphs is that export
was implemented by only one vendor, and every othe
Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit :
> I'm don't often use getopt just for the fact that I can't use
> single-dash arguments like '-release'. DMD uses this syntax, and so to
> other tools. It's not a big deal thanks to D's fantastic
> string-manipulation abilities, so
On 10/4/11 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 17:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/04/11 09:09, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wrote:
In this particular case, because these std,.getopt options are global
variables, building something which uses them, or st
On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit :
I'm don't often use getopt just for the fact that I can't use
single-dash arguments like '-release'. DMD uses this syntax, and so to
other to
On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit :
I'm don't often use getopt just for the fact that I can't use
single-dash arguments like '-release'. DMD uses this syntax, and so to
other tools. It's not a big deal thanks to D's fantastic
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit :
> On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
>>> Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit :
I'm don't often use getopt just for the fact that I can't u
On 10/4/11 3:10 PM, Christophe wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit :
On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit :
I'm don't often use getopt ju
Am 04.10.2011, 22:41 Uhr, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu
:
does -in mean --in or -i -n?
This case must be prohibited and exorcised. You should decide to either
use bundling of -i -n to -in *or* use single dash long arguments. DMD does
*not* allow -wv for example although both letters are va
Yeah I've never seen --abc used as -a -b -c before, it looks quite
strange to me. Is this common in unixland?
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 02:51:47 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Yeah I've never seen --abc used as -a -b -c before, it looks quite
> strange to me. Is this common in unixland?
In unix land, the normal situation is that -- denotes a flag with one or more
characters in it, whereas - denotes a flag
On 10/4/11 7:51 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Yeah I've never seen --abc used as -a -b -c before, it looks quite
strange to me. Is this common in unixland?
No, but bundling -abc as -a -b -c is quite common, particularly in older
programs.
Andrei
On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 20:28:30 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/4/11 7:51 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Yeah I've never seen --abc used as -a -b -c before, it looks quite
> > strange to me. Is this common in unixland?
>
> No, but bundling -abc as -a -b -c is quite common, particularly in
Am 05.10.2011, 03:28 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis :
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 02:51:47 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Yeah I've never seen --abc used as -a -b -c before, it looks quite
strange to me. Is this common in unixland?
In unix land, the normal situation is that -- denotes a flag with o
On 2011-10-04 21:39, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/4/11 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 17:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/04/11 09:09, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wrote:
In this particular case, because these std,.getopt options are global
var
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:39:42 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/4/11 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 17:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/04/11 09:09, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wrote:
In this particular case, because these std,.getopt opt
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:53:25 -0400, Regan Heath
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:39:42 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/4/11 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 17:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/04/11 09:09, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-04 13:21, Regan Heath wr
Christophe wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit :
> > On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
> >>> Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146060), a écrit :
> I'm don't often use getopt just
Jens Mueller , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146111), a écrit :
> Christophe wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit :
>> > On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> >> On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
>> >>> Andrej Mitrovic , dans le message (
Christophe wrote:
> Jens Mueller , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146111), a écrit :
> > Christophe wrote:
> >> Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit :
> >> > On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> >> On 10/4/11 12:05 PM, Christophe wrote:
> >> >>> Andre
On 10/5/11 6:53 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:39:42 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Did it ever prevent you from getting anything done with it?
That's not the question we should be asking. The question we should be
asking is, will anyone ever want to re-use getopts parser fo
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 16:24:32 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > However, the current way to parametrise getopt is to change the
> > character for options ('-'), and I belive the string for long option is
> > twice the character for short option ("--"). I don't think this makes
> > great sense. We c
Jens Mueller , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146114), a écrit :
> Christophe wrote:
>> Jens Mueller , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146111), a écrit :
>> > Christophe wrote:
>> >> Andrei Alexandrescu , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146070), a écrit :
>> >> > On 10/4/11 2:39 PM, Andrei Alexandres
At last you say something I can agree with in this thread.
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
