Re: [naviserver-devel] ns_parseargs example

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

Am 26.05.2005 um 17:41 schrieb Stephen Deasey:

> On 5/26/05, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Can you please give us some examples how to use the
>> ns_parseargs call? I would like to integrate this
>> in our code now and would need to instruct all my
>> collegues how to use it.
>>
>> Just a couple of examples would be sufficient.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Zoran
>>
>
>
> proc ex1 {args} {
>     ns_parseargs {-a {-b ""} -- x {y Y} args} $args
>
>     if {[info exists a]} {
>         return [list $a $b $x $y $args]
>     }
>     return [list $b $x $y $args]
> }
>
>
> There's some use of ns_parseargs in the nstest_http proc of the test
> harness, and of course in ns_parseargs.test.

Ah. Good tip. What I was also looking is the usage of "?" in the
specstring (never understood this one).

So, the "-a" will collect whatever comes after "-a" argument in
the arguments list and set the "a" variable to the value. Clear.
If I omit "-a" from the argument list, I can use specstring

   {-a a.default.value}

and this will set "a" variable with "a.default.value".

Now, where does the "?" come?
Also, how do I specify:

   myproc -booleanarg myarg
   myproc myarg

I'd want to have variable booleanarg set to 1 if i have "-booleanarg"
in argument list and set to 0 if I dont. How to specify this
(if possible at all; I recall there was an issue with that)?

Sorry for all this questions but this lies quite a few weeks
since we last talked about it...

>
> We should probably define ns_proc to allow a more natural usage.  I
> didn't do that at first as we were discussing extra features such as
> type checking.  Do you think we can make that backwards compatible?
>
> proc ns_proc {name spec body} {
>     proc $name {args} "
>         ns_parseargs $spec \$args
>         $body
>     "
> }
>
> ns_proc ex2 {-a {-b ""} -- x {y Y} args} {
>     if {[info exists a]} {
>         return [list $a $b $x $y $args]
>     }
>     return [list $b $x $y $args]
> }
>

Hmmm... what do you mean by "backwards compatible"?
The ns_proc does not exist, as I see, hence there
is no compatibility to look after. We can of course
define the ns_proc anytime and it can coexist with
the Tcl proc. Did I understand you correctly at all?

Apropos type-checking, I would not go to that extent.
The number, position and default values of arguments
seem pretty fine and sufficient. I would not like to
make it more complicated than absolutely necessary.

Cheer's
Zoran