From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2005-06-25T07:39:15+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Application-0.6.0

* Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> [2005-06-25 05:34:48 +0900]:

> > I take patches. ;)
> 
> sorry, busy with my own ruby coding right now...
Yeah, aren't we all. :)

> > Hmm, haven't thought about that, but sounds reasonable.
> > If I follow the rails framework, then this would be a
> > scaffold. However, I have not mentioned what is behind
> > curtain
> > #3, but I can tell you it is something that will generate
> > a project directory structure and an application skeleton.
> > This skeleton (scaffold in rails speak) could just include
> > them as they are done now.
> > 
> > Would this be ok or do you still think there should be
> > implicit options that a user must delete?
> 
> Since I have no knowledge of rails and don't know what's behind
> curtain #3, I don't know what you are talking about.

Eric, you're reading too fast. I told you what was behind curtain #3. ;)
But, this may be a mute point if we use Jim Weirich's idea.

> What I meant was that you should have short description for the
> usage and a long description for the man page.  For example,
> compare gzip -h (usage) vs. man gzip (full docs).  One has a
> few words per option and the other a full paragraph per option.

Yes, but that seems like going overboard. What I mean is that
seems like it could get busy quick. I suppose one way to clean
that up would be to use the std description for both #usage
and #man, but if they define a description for #man, then
use it.

So, how about something like:

  option :names           => "--my-option",
         :opt_description => "this is used in usage (and maybe man)",
         :arg_description => "the_argument",
         # use text below in man page if they exist
         :man_opt_description => "this is a longer description "+
                                 "indended for the man page.",
         :man_arg_description => "do_we_really_need_this_for_arg?"


-- 
Jim Freeze