Hi Jeffrey, Jeffrey Bosboom <jbosboom@uci.edu> writes:
Are you proposing this for inclusion in Boost
I think it is too early to think about this since it is just the first public release. Also, as you have mentioned, there is the program_options library already in Boost which tries to address the same problem though in a different way.
If it's the former, how does your library compare against program_options, already part of Boost?
I have answered this question in detail in the following two blog posts: http://www.codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog/2009/06/28/cli-cxx-the-ideal-soluti... http://www.codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog/2009/07/05/cli-cxx-existing-solutio... In a nutshell, program_options has the following main drawbacks: - verbosity - the use of strings to identify options (easy to misspell) - the need to specify the option type every time its value is retrieved (lack of type safety) CLI addresses these problems by using a concise, special-purpose language to capture the option specifications and by using functions with static return types to access the option values. Boris -- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog Open-source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd XML data binding for embedded systems: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde