[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [help-gengetopt] --no-handle-help|version
From: |
Papp Gyozo (VBuster) |
Subject: |
Re: [help-gengetopt] --no-handle-help|version |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:02:38 +0100 |
> I added the --no-help and --no-version options for gengetopt that avoid
> automatically generating --help and --version
So, you suggest me solving this situation with --no-version. This --version
handling is totally up to the application. In other words with --no-version
enabled options named "version" or "help" are as regular options as the others
specified in .ggo files. Am I right?
> Papp Gyozo (VBuster) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> another minor issue I've been faced up now. Even if I add
> >> '--no-handle-version' the processing of the commandline finishes right
> after
> >> it encounters with a '-V' or '--version' option.
> >>> My application should behave differently, ie. prints the version of
> other
> >> loaded libraries if the required options are given. Now the situation is
> the
> >> latter one does not print engine and vdb version to the output:
> >>> vbscan --vdb= ... --engine=... --version ; both --vdb and --engine
> >> processed
> >>> vbscan --version --vdb= ... --engine=... ; neither --vdb and --engine
> >> processed
> >
> >> I don't know whether it's better to change the current [...]
> >> the programmer has the complete control for them if he wants to...
> >
> > The "entire bypass" may be the best if someone really needs. But if it
> needs a lot to do, then don't do it. I could live with this behaviour. As I
> mentioned it is really a minor issue.
> >
> >
> >>> however in general beside this, gengetopt generated parsers do not deal
> >> with the exact order of the program arguments.
> >>
> >> could you please provide an example?
> >
> > Look at above! It doesn't usually matter either --vdb or --engine comes
> first, the result from the application's view will be the same.
> >
> > notice that the parser completely relies on getopt_long implementation
> > about Yes, you are right indeed.