Hi Pavol, Pavol Droba wrote: > I have tried to use program_options library. I have compiled the library, > ran the examples and then incorporated the library into one of my > projects.
Thanks for putting time into this! > First and in my opinion the most important one is the matter of > documentation. I find it very hard to use. Examples are quite good to give > a nice overview of the library and that's sufficient for a decent start. > But searching for the details is quite difficult. I would prefer a few > chapters explaining various components of the library, each followed by a > reference. Right now I find the documentation rather hard to use. Actuay > it is very close to browsing through header files and in my opinion this > is not what the documentation should be about. I'll keep this in mind. In fact, I plan to convert all the documentation into BoostBook is the library is accepted. The Doxygen is very nice --- in fact, it helps very much to keep everything documented. But I found it rather limiting for writing various "overview" pages. Hope new documentation will be better. [...] > * Arguments > > As it was already mentioned here, arguments should have the same > support as options. Validation and format checking would be appretiated OK, I'm already thinking about possible approaches. > * Validation > > Library allows to supports validation and parsing of option parameters, > but I thinks it is rather limited. It is possible to define > user-specific behaviour, but it would be helpful, if some common > formats would be suported. > > For instance: > * Various integer types ( not just int ) with boundary checking. > Something like > paramter<int>( "count", 1, 4, &count ) // 1-Min and 4-Max > value It's funny that the very first prototype version had this facility. In surely can be added to the current version if there's such need. > * Format specification and checking for string. Regex specification > of something like scanf would be nice. > This can be useful for example to check if the parameter is a > filename. Could you clarify a bit how scanf-like specification can work? You mean it can be used to specify syntax? > * Environment & Others > > The library tries to unify the access to program options from command > line and from ini files. This is very nice feature because it is > removing the need for doing generaly the same thing twice. It would be > nice if some other sources of paramers could be incorporated as well. > Particulary the enviromnmet is often used to exchange arguments. Given > the fact that it consist of a set of pairs "variable=value" it is very > similar to the ini file and so it souldn't be hard to implement. Thanks for the suggestion! It's quite right. > For windows platform the registry comes to play as another source of > options. Yep, that source was considered as alternative from the very start. I've seen some project start with a command line, then add config files and then need registry on Windows. Registry is not yet supported because I wanted to find out if there's support to the idea of uniform access to all configuration means. Thanks, Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
