Re: Re: required options

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:37:04 +1000, "Robert Collins"
<[email protected]> said:
> 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  ?

That's possible? Looks /good/. Could you give me some hints on how to do
that?
 
> 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.

Probably the same thing with this "description" keyword: if it's not in
the documentation noone will no it's there and noone will use it.

Thorsten


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click