Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] AP_STRING_LIST_OPTION?

[Bernd S. <ber...@in...>]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:10:33 +0200, Colin Adams  =

<col...@ho...> wrote:

> It sounds to me like the two should be equivalent. Certainly I do not =
 =

> need a list of lists. But I suppose if people were to supply multiple =
 =

> uses of an AP_STRING_LIST_OPTION, then this ought to be a list of list=
s.  =

> Is it possible to configure an option as not allowing repeats?

Hi Colin,

I have just added the possibility to specify a `maximum_occurrences' for=
  =

options. A value of "0" means that there is no upper limit. If you want =
an  =

option to be given just once, calling "o.set_maximum_occurrences (1)"  =

should be sufficient now.

About your comma-seperated list of arguments, I am currently thinking  =

about an elegant way to integrate this into the library. If you have a  =

good solution, just go forward. I am thinking about adding an optional  =

'split character' to AP_OPTION_WITH_PARAMETER that make '--foo=3Dx,y'  =

equivalent to '--foo=3Dx --foo=3Dy'.

Also, I have strengthend the preconditions for parsing, and now you shou=
ld  =

have a contract violation if you add "two options with the same short or=
  =

long form" (it is a little more complicated with alternative options  =

lists). The tag of the exception is currently 'valid_options', which is =
 =

not too good, but difficult to change.

Bernd

PS: Thanks for helping me to improve the library.
PPS: I still have the request open to have `mutually exclusive options',=
  =

but I have not found a good solution yet.