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

[Fintan F. <fi...@gm...>]

We're not diverging, AllOptions is still a named regexp. It's just defined
by default. It just saves you having to write it out manually.

I agree it's not entirely like regexp syntax, but it wasn't intended to be.
I really don't want to write [^SomeOptionOrGroup] in the format string. It's
horrible.

Also, treating option groups as sets is powerful for generating a group with
exactly the options we want inside it in a short succinct manner.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Julien Charles <jul...@gm...>wrote:

> I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. I've added a feature request
> going in that direction for v0.3.
> Cheers,
> Julien
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Mikoláš Janota <mik...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
>