Re: Handling short and long options

[Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev]

yea do so, good luck

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 05:36 angioberlinguer <angioberlinguer@protonmail.com>
wrote:

> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:14 AM, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <
> fxmbsw7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> well imho such is weak
>
> at a standart minimum, a -o or --opt with a one required argument, needs
> still to be parsed both ways
> i mean with space for next arg or a = for inside_this_arg
> .. not just the --opt variant
>
> the code to support this could be simple
> but i discourage the use of mixed args ( eg with an equal sign instead of
> on its own )
>
>
> * Ok, Alex, I will focus on supporting both.
>
> codewise, per !i in args, parse off the part before = whenever exisiting,
> and check then if its a supported arg, then check whenever that arg needs
> required number of args, then parse em, the first guess being the part
> after =, in case
>
> like without = an arg can have 3 args, no =, -o 1 2 3 otheropt, --opt 1 2
> 3 otheropt
>
>
> * This is interesting, not thought about having multiple args yet.
>
> Will spend some more time on it, and send over my solution, and discuss
> how to enhance its capability.
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 04:55 angioberlinguer <angioberlinguer@protonmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex , thanks fuck for that!  It's not a total disaster then.  Have
>> found some useful discussions
>> in the following stackoverflow question.  They handle short-options with
>> spaces and long-options with
>> equal signs.
>>
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/192249/how-do-i-parse-command-line-arguments-in-bash/29754866#29754866
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>