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
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" <[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
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
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
"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 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
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
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?
>
>
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
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:
> > >
> > ...
>
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
