Curtis L. Olson writes:
Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the text hard coded into the
David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the text hard coded
Jim Wilson writes:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than
Jim Wilson writes:
There must be a reason for not having it hard coded, but I can't
think of what it would be. Is this just to make minor
spelling/syntax corrections without rebuilding...or are you looking
toward supporting multiple languages?
It would be interesting to make options
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
... patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the text hard coded into the source.
Sound like a good idea? Any objections?...
It is an obvious and long needed improvement. However, if I read the
Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Since we went a couple rounds on this before, I thought I would post
this on the mailing list for discussion first. This patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the
C. Hotchkiss wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
... patch moves all
the command line help text to an xml file and then loads it at run
time, rather than having the text hard coded into the source.
Sound like a good idea? Any objections?...
It is an obvious and long needed improvement.
David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
There must be a reason for not having it hard coded, but I can't
think of what it would be. Is this just to make minor
spelling/syntax corrections without rebuilding...or are you looking
toward supporting multiple languages?
It would be
Erik Hofman wrote:
C. Hotchkiss wrote:
...
If the file isn't needed because an error wasn't made, does the program abort
because it cannot find the file? Admittedly I'm being lazy in not testing this
myself.
It only throws an exception when --help (or an incorrect argument) was
If the program cannot find options.xml, I strongly suggest that it still should give a
sensible (if brief) reply to --help. This reply should tell the user how to help it
to find options.xml.
- Julian
C. Hotchkiss wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
C. Hotchkiss wrote:
...
If the file
11 matches
Mail list logo
