On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm trying to understand what's going on;
obviously there's some kind of semantic change with optional argument to switches.
Could anyone shed some light on this please? I'm not sure how to proceed now. TIA, -DD
OK, maybe with a small stand-alone program, I'll have more chances of getting help. ... Is this a regression? Given [2] I'd say yes, but given that test_implicit_value() [3] does test something similar to what I'm doing, I'm a bit baffled by my little example not working properly. What am I missing? Thanks, --DD
[1] https://github.com/boostorg/program_options/commit/ ed72cc2f92d0e48d0573614bb8d180325bff9866 [2] https://github.com/boostorg/program_options/commit/ 7729850bb7eb25b42552b25eff41f141dfa3729f [3] https://github.com/boostorg/program_options/commit/ ed72cc2f92d0e48d0573614bb8d180325bff9866
Rah, the test code in 1.64 reads like test_case test_cases1[] = { {"--foo bar", s_success, "foo: positional:bar"}, {"--foo=bar foobar", s_success, "foo:bar positional:foobar"}, {0, 0, 0} }; while the one on the develop branch behaves as 1.56 and the way I need! (see below) So it means Vladimir hasn't merged these commits into the release, despite predating it :( Bummer bummer bummer... Specific reasons this wasn't done? Will they be in 1.65? --DD test_case test_cases1[] = { // 'bar' does not even look like option, so is consumed {"--foo bar", s_success, "foo:bar"}, // '--bar' looks like option, and such option exists, so we don't consume this token {"--foo --bar", s_success, "foo: bar:"}, // '--biz' looks like option, but does not match any existing one. // Presently this results in parse error, since // (1) in cmdline.cpp:finish_option, we only consume following tokens if they are // requires // (2) in cmdline.cpp:run, we let options consume following positional options // For --biz, an exception is thrown between 1 and 2. // We might want to fix that in future. {"--foo --biz", s_unknown_option, ""}, {0, 0, 0} };