Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] AP_STRING_LIST_OPTION?

[Colin A. <col...@ho...>]

> <col...@ho...> wrote:
>=20
> > It sounds to me like the two should be equivalent. Certainly I do not =
=20
> > need a list of lists. But I suppose if people were to supply multiple =
=20
> > uses of an AP_STRING_LIST_OPTION, then this ought to be a list of lists=
. =20
> > Is it possible to configure an option as not allowing repeats?
>=20
> Hi Colin,
>=20
> I have just added the possibility to specify a `maximum_occurrences' for =
=20
> options. A value of "0" means that there is no upper limit. If you want a=
n =20
> option to be given just once, calling "o.set_maximum_occurrences (1)" =20
> should be sufficient now.

That will do fine.
=20
> About your comma-seperated list of arguments, I am currently thinking =20
> about an elegant way to integrate this into the library. If you have a =20
> good solution, just go forward.=20

I haven't thought about a solution yet.

>I am thinking about adding an optional =20
> 'split character' to AP_OPTION_WITH_PARAMETER that make '--foo=3Dx,y' =20
> equivalent to '--foo=3Dx --foo=3Dy'.

I suppose that will do (assuming the split character is configurable).
=20
> Also, I have strengthend the preconditions for parsing, and now you shoul=
d =20
> have a contract violation if you add "two options with the same short or =
=20
> long form" (it is a little more complicated with alternative options =20
> lists). The tag of the exception is currently 'valid_options', which is =
=20
> not too good, but difficult to change.

Is it committed yet? I will try it out when it is.


> PPS: I still have the request open to have `mutually exclusive options', =
=20
> but I have not found a good solution yet.


Can't you just have references to other options which are to be regarded as=
 mutually exclusive?


_________________________________________________________________
Feel like a local wherever you go.
http://www.backofmyhand.com=