Re: [Jargp-general] working on unofficial 1.1

[Matthew W. <un...@id...>]

On 8 Jan, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:

> By the way, the StringTracker class already defines a peek() method 
> which seems equivalent to your next(false). I'd prefer the peek() 
> method to next(false), since the former seems more intuitive to me.

No, there's a pretty big difference.  With peek(), you don't advance 
the index, and with next(false), you do.  All three functions - get a 
value, advance, consume; get a value, advance; and just get a value - 
are significant.  I agree that the next(false) idiom is a poor one, but 
I'm not sure what a better approach would be.

> On the issue of initializing instances of two separate classes from 
> the same set of argument values, I'm somewhat torn. This seems like a 
> very specialized usage, and I don't know that it's a good idea to 
> extend the operation to support it. If you really want to get this 
> functionality, I'd think it'd be cleaner to do it by adding an 
> optional target object per ParameterSet.

Interesting idea... but I *suspect* that that change will actually 
require more significant changes to the code, and will constitute a 
more serious design change for a very specialized usage :-)

> I do like the idea of supporting gnu-style "--full-name" parameters, 
> and think it should be an easy change to add this support. There've 
> been several cases where I've been leaning toward this myself, after 
> defining a dozen or so character parameter flags. And I do think the 
> gnu-style with two leading hyphens is appropriate, since that way it 
> doesn't interfere with the existing character parameter handling.

I think that is why GNU did it that way.

By the way, my sourceforge ID is bsdcat.
-- 
  Matthew Weigel
  unique&idempot.ent
  Unique and Idempotent