Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You wouldn't say
--foo --no-foo
if you just meant
--no-foo
Would you?
I think the basic question is, what do you expect from a certain
combination of options and arguments. For example,
--foo arg1 --no-foo arg2
This can be interpreted as:
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you mean to say that 99% of the time (when --foo and --no-foo are
both present) that it is because somebody has an alias with a --foo
flag written into it?
Independent of percentages, why disallow --foo --no-foo provided
there's a clear definition
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, imacat wrote:
[ ... ]
From my personal experience dealing with GNU autoconf
and automake, I think the module author should be
responsible to specify what external executables,
libraries, versions are required. Then
ExtUtils::MakeMaker can produce a certain error
On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:43 AM, imacat wrote:
I'm forwarding this whole thread to Jos Boumans (author of
CPANPLUS),
Michael G Schwern (author of ExtUtils::MakeMaker) and the
module-authors'
list.
Sorry, with several pages worth of top quoting, i have no idea what
this thread is about, or
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, and maybe I showing my age here, but is *this* where the
negated-options thing comes from? I.E. is this the historic (and
entire) reason for having the 'foo!' syntax in Getopt::Long?
No, it's because of a) defaults. Sometimes a flag is enabled by
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:14:51 -0700
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:43:14AM +0800, imacat wrote:
This is all a bit of a ramble. Could we have an executive summary as to
the point particularly in relation to MakeMaker, CPANPLUS and module authors
in
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see this essay
http://scratchcomputing.com/svn/Getopt-Modern/trunk/data/notes/why_order_matters.txt
Nice piece of writing, but it contains several flaws. For example:
If your spouse tells you to get tuna and halibut, but not any
other
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:57:26 +0200
Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please see this essay
http://scratchcomputing.com/svn/Getopt-Modern/trunk/data/notes/why_order_matters.txt
If your spouse tells you to get tuna and halibut, but not any
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 01:35]:
I dont understand. If there was no need to be able to say
--foo --no-foo, then why do both exist?
No, no, no. Start over.
1. There is a need.
2. It doesn't matter what order the user gives the options in,
the result should be the
On 17/06/2005 09:14 Michael G Schwern wrote:
This is all a bit of a ramble. Could we have an executive summary as to
the point particularly in relation to MakeMaker, CPANPLUS and module authors
in general?
CPANPLUS issues FAIL reports when there is no C compiler, which irks
module authors
On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Ken Williams wrote:
For a counterexample, please see the -f and -i options to /bin/rm.
Many people, myself included, have found it exceptionally useful that
the final switch takes precedence, because then we can do things like
alias ls ls -i and still be able
On Jun 16, 2005, at 11:04 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Ok, and maybe I showing my age here, but is *this* where the
negated-options thing comes from? I.E. is this the historic (and
entire) reason for having the 'foo!' syntax in Getopt::Long?
If so, is that why there is so much resistance to
Title: RE: RFC: Getopt::Modern
[Quoting Eric Wilhelm, on June 16 2005, 15:14, in Re: RFC:
Getopt::Mo]
15 years * n requests/year = 15*n degrees of flexibility =
unpredictable
Hmm. I'd say
15 years * n requests/year * m happy users = reliability
which is as meaningless as your
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# Johan Vromans
# on Friday 17 June 2005 12:55 am:
Do you mean to say that 99% of the time (when --foo and --no-foo are
both present) that it is because somebody has an alias with a --foo
flag written into it?
Independent of percentages, why disallow
* Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 17:20]:
I can make this information available, if users would be
interested.
Access to structured data is always nicer than implementing and
re-implemeting a parser for its serialized form.
So if it doesnt take too much effort, it would be nice to
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# imacat
# on Friday 17 June 2005 02:51 am:
I did not notice the go_shop problem. But I think it's trivial to
solve that with Getopt::Long:
my @conf_fishes = read_conf(fish); # get qw(trout)
my @opt_fishes = qw();
my $opt_nofish = 0;
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:45:26 -0700
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. Then my previous argument stands. If the --no- means unset any
hard-coded or config-file defaults, then it shouldn't be evaluated in
command-line order.
Well, as I said, if you would like unordered options,
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# Johan Vromans
# on Friday 17 June 2005 08:14 am:
If it involves typing @main::ARGV, something is wrong.
This is another one of your statements that feel like a religious
issue. If typing @main::ARGV indicates that something is wrong, I
think you have
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 18:00]:
In fact, as I mentioned I would be happy for G::L to have this
functionality, but I doubt that program-order evaluation (one
of the main design goals) is going to fit without some serious
restructuring.
Why do you keep claiming that? Both
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 18:20]:
In any case. How does G::L evaluate in precedence order?
That's why I'm writing G::?
By parsing into two separate variables, and allowing separate
module-client code evaluate how to react to the values in those
to variables. A working
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:08:51 -0700
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. You can solve it. It's not really trivial by the time you add
meats, cheeses, breads, and mustard though. All of these things come
in many flavors and you might have a config file with your favorites
listed in
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 18:15]:
It's not really trivial by the time you add meats, cheeses,
breads, and mustard though. All of these things come in many
flavors and you might have a config file with your favorites
listed in it so that running go_shop with no arguments
--- A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you keep claiming that? Both me and someone else already
posted working code that shows how you can trivially do what you
want with Getopt::Long if you just use two different variables.
Which, to me, is the clincher. Getopt::Long can easily
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:53:44AM +0100, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
CPANPLUS issues FAIL reports when there is no C compiler, which irks
module authors who feel such reports make their module look bad.
Some feel that CPANPLUS should detect this and not send a report, others
feel it should
On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:13 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 20:15]:
I'm still trying to figure out why it's carried on this long.
Calling the new module ::Modern and claiming that ::Long is
crufty, too flexible, and unpredictable probably set the mood.
Amen.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:07:27PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:13 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 20:15]:
I'm still trying to figure out why it's carried on this long.
Calling the new module ::Modern and claiming that ::Long is
crufty,
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# Ken Williams
# on Friday 17 June 2005 01:07 pm:
Calling the new module ::Modern and claiming that ::Long is
crufty, too flexible, and unpredictable probably set the mood.
Amen. Eric, that was really obnoxious. You might have had more luck
convincing
* Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 22:45]:
Imagine this is Eric's first try at publishing a module.
Then what is http://search.cpan.org/~ewilhelm/? :-)
You could take at least a cursory look before making such
assumptions
Regards,
--
#Aristotle
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:22:58PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 22:45]:
Imagine this is Eric's first try at publishing a module.
Then what is http://search.cpan.org/~ewilhelm/? :-)
You could take at least a cursory look before making such
so basically the executive summary is that cpanplus does not report
adequately system dependency failures, like a missing c compiler or a
missing library. i guess the issue is one of prioritizing an
appropriate response from maintainers who care about these reports.
specifically, maintainers
On Jun 17, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Austin Schutz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:07:27PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:13 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 20:15]:
I'm still trying to figure out why it's carried on this long.
Calling the new
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:34:59 -0700
Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was I assuming, or was I imagining? The point is that the
community can be unnecessarily combative and ugly, a point which to
my eyes you have helped illustrate.
Well, I suppose, I am one of those you
# The following was supposedly scribed by
# imacat
# on Friday 17 June 2005 06:46 pm:
(I started to laugh at Johan's Getopt::Personal::EWilhelm),
Me too!
Aristotle and I even figured out a simple
solution to Eric's problem. We have proved that Getopt::Long is not
unpredictable. It is
* Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-17 23:40]:
The point is that the community can be unnecessarily combative
and ugly, a point which to my eyes you have helped illustrate.
Yes, I was rude. At first I was frustrated after trying to find
information about Erics proposal other than this
34 matches
Mail list logo
