This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 37 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 37 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor] wrote: > What precisely is the problem with doing the splitting > post-arg-processing, i.e. doing the equivalent of > > --long-name="first-arg second-arg" > > from the shell? That's how autoconf/configure operates, for instance. Yes, in case anyone missed my list of questions/comments about multi argument options in the "cmdline.ss library in PLT" thread, I suggested this idiom there too. At this point, I think the primary argument against the common idiom is the possibility of implementing the cmdline.ss interface in terms of args-fold, but it has been revealed that cmdline.ss diverges from POSIX/GNU guidelines in other ways as well (creating further incompatibilities), so I don't think it is realistic to pursue multi argument options for the sake of cmdline.ss. Is there any other good argument for considering multi arguments options in the face of the sub-parsing idiom? I'm leaning against extending args-fold to support them. -Anthony Carrico