Hi James, James Mansion <james@mansionfamily.plus.com> writes:
Perhaps if you had an option to compile the .cli file to code that uses the existing Boost command line interface support, then you would have a better reception here?
Personally I'm all for mini-languages, but if the compiler doesn't use boost, and doesn't generate code that depends on boost, your post looks a bit like spam
It doesn't make "design" sense to do this. Boost program_options' complexity comes from the need to have the specification in C++. On the other hand, CLI generates really simple code because all the information is available at compile time. In this situation adding a dependency on program_options would be like putting text in a web page just to get picked up by google. Now that I would call spamming. The reason I announced CLI on boost-dev is because I tried to use program_options myself but wasn't really satisfied with the result. So I went ahead and coded my own solution which, IMO and at least for some use-cases, is more convenient than program_options. I thought it would be only fair to let others know about it. I don't think boost developers/users would want to force others to use "their solution" over a better alternative. Or would they ;-)? Boris -- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis 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 Command line interface to C++ compiler http://codesynthesis.com/projects/cli