Re: [PATCH] Add a simple option parser.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
>
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 01:11 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 09:45:01PM +0000, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > > The option parser takes argc, argv, an array of struct option
> > > and a usage string. Each of the struct option elements in the array
> > > describes a valid option, its type and a pointer to the location where the
> > > value is written. The entry point is parse_options(), which scans through
> > > the given argv, and matches each option there against the list of valid
> > > options. During the scan, argv is rewritten to only contain the
> > > non-option command line arguments and the number of these is returned.
> >
> > if we are going in that direction (and I believe it's a good one), we
> > should be sure that the model fits with other commands as well. And as I
> > said on IRC, I believe the most "horrible" (as in complex) option parser
> > in git is the one from git-grep.
> >
> > A migration of git-grep on that API should be tried first. If this
> > works well enough, I believe that the rest of the git commands will be
> > migrated easily enough. (with maybe small addition to parse-option.[hc]
> > but the hardcore things should have been met with git-grep already I
> > think).
>
> I'm not sure - we can go with the current proposal and add new options
> types and probably the callback option type I suggested as we go. I
> don't want to block builtin-commit on figuring out what the perfect
> option parser should look like and what I sent out earlier work for
> commit. I think the way you handled the strbuf rewrites worked pretty
> well; extending and rewriting the API as you put it to use in more and
> more places. We can do the same thing with parse_options().
Of course we can do that, or junio said that some people talked about
popt some time ago. I understand that you don't want to block the
git-commit work, but doing things right from the beginning is often a
big win on the long term.
I don't know popt, and I don't know if it has sufficient expressivity.
For sure I don't like getopt_long APIs at all, so if popt is as
cumbersome, rolling our own based on the current parse_options you
propose is probably a good choice.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>