Re: [Chicken-users] Bug with #:optional in args egg?

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Jim Ursetto wrote: Anyway, I would avoid using the args egg because the behavior of SRFI-37 as > specified is not really what we expect from modern argument parsers. > In that case it ought to be replaced by a new SRFI, now that we have a good deprecation mechanis

Re: [Chicken-users] Bug with #:optional in args egg?

On Jun 19, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Diego A. Mundo wrote: > > With the example on the args eggref > (http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/args#examples > ) slightly modified to this: > … > You can see how the behavior of using required arguments (-e or --e

Re: [Chicken-users] Bug with #:optional in args egg?

Hello Diego, > While I find it a bit odd that someone might want the args behavior > the way it is (I guess it seems less versatile to me) I intended it more as "it would be a bug to change the behavior at this point". I've looked into this a bit more and discovered that the args egg is pretty m

Re: [Chicken-users] Bug with #:optional in args egg?

at it doesn't seem to support passing values to long options with a space instead of an "=" (even though one of th examples provided says otherwise, the "--apples" "Granny Smith" bit). Diego Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Bug with

Re: [Chicken-users] Bug with #:optional in args egg?

Hello Diego, I'm not sure whether this is a bug and fixing it is desired. If changed, it would affect existing programs using the args egg that would no longer work in the old way. Also, there are programs that do argument parsing this way, albeit not many and typically only for a few select arg

[Chicken-users] Bug with #:optional in args egg?

With the example on the args eggref (http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/args#examples) slightly modified to this: #!/usr/local/bin/csi -script (use args) (define opts (list (args:make-o