Re: Re: required options

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 09:27 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, four arguments instead of two. Obviously an ugly, nonsensical
> "hack".
>  
> > if you want to do that, that is. I agree with the Tao though, if
> > something is mandatory, it is not an 'option'.
> 
> I agree with the Tao, too. But the whole point of my posting was that
> these people in fact don't want mandatory options but named arguments.

target=TARGET  ?

Thats easy to do with the argument parser I have in my branch of optik.
Getting that into HEAD is a goal, but having got the benefit of it, I'm
not hacking on it hugely.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBQAggM4BfeEKYx2ERAtL0AJ9Im2Hfr33QVcA+QPxfcgyP3MZUugCgtqfJ
+dNkZzePRunQJlv0SLL0zp0=
=okVn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----