[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options
From: |
Papp Gyozo (VBuster) |
Subject: |
Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:14:00 +0200 |
> Papp Gyozo (VBuster) wrote:
> >>> What would happen if such a base option (btw how do you call it when
> >>> other options depend on it?) may not be required if it had a default
> >>> value? (Or enabled/switched on by default like "flag on")
> >> I see in dependant_option.h_skel which condition is needed to
> >> modify/extend:
> >> But I don't know how. (It was a long time ago when I made changes to
> the
> >> gengetopt source...)
> I'm a little bit reluctant about such a solution: if you make an option
> of a group with a default value, what happens when another option of the
> same group is provided? You'd need to unset the previously option with
> default value? Using flag options might be even harder to define a
I think it is not a big problem at least for me. ;)
Group options have already their individual _arg & _orig fields in the
structure, as far as I know. Let me rephrase what I mentioned previously: be
able to set a default group option! If not specified anything at all from the
group gengetopt may behave as if this option were set. (--init in my example.)
I admit this is not the best approach to this specific problem but:
- it suffices my needs
- and I think it is a really viable feature anyhow.
> clean semantics of group options (flag options was a legacy of the very
> first version of gengetopt - I'm not the first author of gengentopt -
> and I think that flag options make a little sense too)...
Well, I share your point of view about flags. I just noted that we had to deal
with them, too.
Even a "base"
> option with a default value might make dependent options harder to
> understand: an option that depends on another option implicitly requires
> the other option to be provided, otherwise it would make a little sense.
You are right in theory. Actually my main concern is being compatible with
previous version where this --init option was simply optional. Now this --init
option seemed the best counterpart of the newly introduced --attach option,
that was the reason why I wanted them to form a group. (From this point you
could get know the whole story.)
> A situation like the one you describes implicitly requires mutually
> exclusive groups (not groups of mutually exclusive options), i.e., the
>
> What do you think about that?
Well, actually I didn't like to dream about such rocking new features but if
you are willing to add it I will be very glad to see and use it. ;)
- Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options, (continued)
- Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options, Papp Gyozo (VBuster), 2007/06/14
- Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options, Papp Gyozo (VBuster), 2007/06/14
- Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options, Papp Gyozo (VBuster), 2007/06/14
- Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options,
Papp Gyozo (VBuster) <=
- Re: [help-gengetopt] mutually exclusive group of options, Papp Gyozo (VBuster), 2007/06/15