dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 11 May 2009 08:09:42 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 07:44:29AM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 May 2009 23:47:47 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:42:50PM +0200, DOLFIN wrote:
> > > > changeset:   6120:76bf86cf514eb0dbc88861c3ae3e6f113a80141a
> > > > parent:      6117:84edb07b28286a6ca33c399ad30d32b634b52ea9
> > > > user:        Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > date:        Sun May 10 23:40:32 2009 +0200
> > > > files:       dolfin/parameter/NewParameter.cpp
> > > > dolfin/parameter/NewParameter.h dolfin/parameter/NewParameters.cpp
> > > > dolfin/parameter/NewParameters.h sandbox/misc/cpp/main.cpp
> > > > description: Implement parsing of command-line options using
> > > > boost::program_options
> > >
> > > This seems to work nicely and didn't require that much
> > > code. Parameters can now be read from the command line with
> >
> > Works fine. How do we set the nested parameters?
>
> Don't know yet. There is some support for it in po but I haven't
> figured it out yet.

I think you can implement this by adding the nested parameters with a 
recursive function, which takes a "name base" as optional argument. In meta 
code.

  def register_options(parameters,base=""): 
      for params in parameters:
          if params is NewParameter:
              add_option(base+params.name())
          elif isinstance(params,NewParameters):
              register_options(base+"-"+params.name)

Here "-" is the deliminator, could be "." too.

The parsing could be done in a similare way.

> > Does po comes with some help functionality, so
> >
> >   ./test --help
> >
> > can print the available options?
>
> Yes, I've just added this.
>
> But I'm not sure what to do when this option is given. Right now, the
> help text is printed but the program does not exit. Suggestions?

I think the program should exit. But with which exit code I am not sure, 
probably 0.

Johan

> > >   parameters.read(argc, argv);
> > >
> > > Should it be parameters.parse(argc, argv)?
> >
> > I vote for this.
>
> I've changed it.