On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:17:44AM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote: >On 25/07/2011 19:44, szgyg wrote: >> On 7/22/2011 3:33 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote: >>> On 30/05/2011 10:28, szgyg wrote: >>>> I want to say `./setup.exe --site <ports> --site <local-repo>', so >>>> there it is. >>> >>> However, I think it needs a clearer description: What it actually does is >>> (i) add infrastructure for handling options which are repeated, and (ii) >>> correctly handle multiple --site, --pubkey and -sexpr-pubkey options. >> >> 2011-07-25 SZAVAI Gyula <[email protected]> >> >> * libgetopt++/src/StringArrayOption.cc: New file. >> Infrastructure for repeated string options. >> * libgetopt++/include/getopt++/StringArrayOption.h: Ditto. >> * libgetopt++/Makefile.am: Add new files. >> * site.cc (SiteSetting::SiteSetting): Handle multiple --site >> options. >> * crypto.cc (verify_ini_file_sig): Handle multiple --pubkey and >> --sexpr-pubkey options. >> * package_meta.cc (packagemeta::isManuallyWanted): Handle >> multiple --packages and --categories options. >> >>> Would it make sense for the new StringArrayOption class derive from or >>> have members of type StringOption, rather than duplicating some of it? >> >> We can move some common code from {Bool,StringArray,String}Option up to the >> Option class. I will be AFK in the next two weeks, after that I will send a >> follow-up patch. > >Looking at this again, I withdrawn my comment on putting common code in the >Option class. This patch matches the existing design of having no code in the >Option class. > >So can we apply this? It's correct, and it works.
Do you want to do it Jon? I haven't looked at it in detail (i.e., at all) but if you think it's ok, that works for me. cgf
