Re: Looking for better/familiar approach to command line opts

Check out the getoptions gem by my friend Delaney Parker, it was modeled
after Perl's Getopt::Long.

Jos
On Sep 25, 2011 2:24 PM, "Perl J." <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Josh Cheek wrote in post #1023694:
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Josh Cheek <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> use of AUTOLOAD, which some Perlers say is bad -- I say it's extremely
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> values from the command line. If I said:
>>>> Now how to do this in Ruby? Like I said, the OptParser seems WAY too
>>>> :sPath => 's:',
>>>> whether 'v' exists, true or false, into @verbose." Now how much more
>>>> (I don't understand why a lot of d_m() examples use
self.class.send()!!)
>>>> def initialize( options )
>>>> end
>>>> above. If the innards of the Options class use OptParser, fine.
>>> program do what you want?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, that should be like this:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/env ruby -s
>> options = {
>> :source_path => $s,
>> :dest_path => $d,
>> :verbose => $v,
>> }
>> p options
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> And you could invoke it like this
>>
>> $ ./script.rb -s=path/to/input.txt -d=path/to/output.txt -v
>> {:source_path=>"path/to/input.txt", :dest_path=>"path/to/output.txt",
>> :verbose=>true}
>
> Ehh, it's interesting and simple, for sure. But now I'm changing the
> way I generally call and use DSLs I create. Generally I call as (as per
> must Unix utils):
>
> $ myutil -f foo -b bar
>
> and not:
>
> $ myutil -f=foo -b=bar
>
> If the later were how I called things, then in my mind it would actually
> be easier to just grab command line parameters and parse them myself on
> the '=' symbol.
>
> Also, if -v isn't specified it becomes nil in the resulting hash, but I
> see nil evals as false essentially, so that seems to still work.
>
> I might play with this some. I want a object instance, not a hash, but
> I might be able to get there using this. It's much simpler, that's for
> sure.
>
> -pj
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>