On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 15:34, Julian Foad wrote:
> If the program cannot find options.xml, I strongly suggest that it still should give
>a sensible (if brief) reply to "--help". This reply should tell the user how to help
>it to find options.xml.
I'll second that.
>
> - Julian
>
>
> "C. Hot
If the program cannot find options.xml, I strongly suggest that it still should give a
sensible (if brief) reply to "--help". This reply should tell the user how to help it
to find options.xml.
- Julian
"C. Hotchkiss" wrote:
>
> Erik Hofman wrote:
>
> > C. Hotchkiss wrote:
> > >
> > ...
>
Erik Hofman wrote:
> C. Hotchkiss wrote:
> >
> ...
> > If the file isn't needed because an error wasn't made, does the program abort
> > because it cannot find the file? Admittedly I'm being lazy in not testing this
> > myself.
>
> It only throws an exception when --help (or an incorrect argument
David Megginson wrote:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > There must be a reason for not having it hard coded, but I can't
> > think of what it would be. Is this just to make minor
> > spelling/syntax corrections without rebuilding...or are you looking
> > toward supporting multiple languages?
>
>
C. Hotchkiss wrote:
>
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
>
>>... patch moves all
>>the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
>>time, rather than having the text hard coded into the source.
>>
>>Sound like a good idea? Any objections?...
>
>
> It is an obvious and long need
Jim Wilson wrote:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
>>this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
>>the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
>>time, rather th
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> ... patch moves all
> the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
> time, rather than having the text hard coded into the source.
>
> Sound like a good idea? Any objections?...
It is an obvious and long needed improvement. However, if I read t
Jim Wilson writes:
> There must be a reason for not having it hard coded, but I can't
> think of what it would be. Is this just to make minor
> spelling/syntax corrections without rebuilding...or are you looking
> toward supporting multiple languages?
It would be interesting to make options
Jim Wilson writes:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
> > this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
> > the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
> > time, rat
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
> this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
> the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
> time, rather than having the text hard c
David Megginson wrote:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
> > this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
> > the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
> > time, rather than hav
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
> this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
> the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
> time, rather than having the text hard coded into the so
Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the text hard coded into the source.
Sound like a good idea? Any o
13 matches
Mail list logo