[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
EstebanLM wrote
> is cool.
> I would like to explore the possibility to replace our command
line parser
> with getopt. You know… is more compatible at the end :)
I find the implementation of our command line handlers very
confusing. It
seems like it grew organically from a smaller idea and the design
got out of
control. There are many assumptions that can make it hard to extend,
especially to combine multiple options, as Ben and I discovered when
implementing the "don't run startup scripts" handler. It would be
nice to
revisit starting from a behavioral specification.
Well, what makes you say that?
The core CommandLineHandler itself is pretty generic and can do a lot of
things.
Then, yeah, what is under is quite varied. But that's to be expected
when trying out "new tech".
I've been making one of my own here for a given project with about 20-30
commands and I had to put in some structure indeed.
Is that part available somewhere that can be reviewed ?
cheers -ben
