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

[Mikoláš J. <mik...@gm...>]

I don't like the special keyword AllOptions and that we are diverging
from the idea that option groups are named rexpses.

In regexp notation instead of
> OptionalOptions:   AllOptions -CompulsoryOptions;
I'd write [^CompulsoryOptions], and AllOptions correspond to ".".

m.


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;
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Mikoláš Janota M. Sc.
School of Computer Science and Informatics,
University College Dublin,
Belfield,
Dublin 4,
Ireland