Re: [Clops-users] AllOptions and other ways of defining option groups

[Julien C. <jul...@gm...>]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Fintan Fairmichael <fi...@gm...>wrote:

> I modified the option store generation template so we now have an
> OptionGroup named "AllOptions". This was easy to do, but when I went to see
> in which .clo files I could use it I realised that it wasn't sufficient. For
> most interfaces there is often the need to have a group that includes most,
> but not all, of the options.
>
> I'd like to propose that we create a way of easily defining such groups. My
> initial design would be allow subtracting options (or option groups) from
> the set, something like:
>
> OptionalOptions:   AllOptions -CompulsoryOptions;

Could it be a more documentation friendly name instead? Like just 'All', I
mean I don't want to have to make a special case in the doc generation to
make up a more user friendly name.


>
>
> Or for svn,
>
> Options:   AllOptions -Commands;
>
> Where option or option group names prefixed with a '-' means that they
> should be removed from the set.
>
> This obviously creates some complication in terms of how we expand an
> option group to determine exactly what options are in it, but I think the
> effort would be worth it. I think allowing definitions like the above will
> help to keep the groupings succinct.
>
> Comments/suggestions?
>
> -F
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
> Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
> _______________________________________________
> Clops-users mailing list
> Clo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clops-users
>
>