stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Black <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] problems in eval_options()
Date Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:53:10 GMT
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Andrew Black wrote:
>> Greetings Martin
>> I've glanced over the patch and have attached a revised version that I 
>> feel is a tad more consistent.
> What? The consistency of my patch being challenged?! ;-)
>> * Invalid/missing options error messages are now routed through the 
>> (new) bad_value and missing_value functions.  I prefer these to 
>> calling terminate(), as they also display the usage instructions when 
>> the option is incorrectly used.
> I don't think we should be displaying the entire help screen for
> each typo. I have reservations about doing that for invalid option,
> let alone for their arguments. The help text is long and might drown
> out the error message itself. It's also not how most implementations
> of utilities behave. So unless you have a really good argument for
> doing so I'll remove this bit.

*shrug*  I'm not too attached to displaying the full usage instructions. 
  An advantage of creating the additional help functions is you can 
alter the behavior in one or two places as whims change, rather than 
having to hunt down all the places changes are required.  I suppose my 
reason for dumping the full help text is so the user can know what is 
expected, but the text might not be as helpful on that score as it could be.

--Andrew Black

View raw message