sebb wrote:
On 7/11/05, Nigel Rantor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
The Avalon CLI code is a *different* implementation of CLI, but which
happened to have the same problem.
To use Avalon instead of another CLI would require quite a few
application code
sebb wrote:
This was also a problem with the original Avalon CLI code. It was
fixed in the updated version submitted via Bugzilla:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34672
The problem was that - was being treated as special even when
collecting text for the current option value.
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
The Avalon CLI code is a *different* implementation of CLI, but which
happened to have the same problem.
To use Avalon instead of another CLI would require quite a few
application code changes.
[And vice-versa, moving from Avalon to another CLI would mean lots
sebb wrote:
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
The Avalon CLI code is a *different* implementation of CLI, but which
happened to have the same problem.
To use Avalon instead of another CLI would require quite a few
application code changes.
[And vice-versa, moving from Avalon to another CLI
On 7/11/05, Nigel Rantor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
The Avalon CLI code is a *different* implementation of CLI, but which
happened to have the same problem.
To use Avalon instead of another CLI would require quite a few
application code
This was also a problem with the original Avalon CLI code. It was
fixed in the updated version submitted via Bugzilla:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34672
The problem was that - was being treated as special even when
collecting text for the current option value.
S.
On
Hi all,
I've had a bit of a root about and can't find anyone mention of this in
the docs or on the MARC archives.
I'm using CLI for a few things and I'd now like to be able to have an
option accept negative numbers.
I looked for docs on the parsers and basically found nothing other than
Hmmm, this is interesting as negatives will look a lot like real
options... will have a look over the weekend sometime and get back to you.
Rob
Nigel Rantor wrote:
Hi all,
I've had a bit of a root about and can't find anyone mention of this in
the docs or on the MARC archives.
I'm using
