New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CLI-217: Optional partial matching #15
Conversation
Is someone looking at this PR? |
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ | |||
### https://raw.github.com/github/gitignore/f2ce448f2ba7a092da05482ceca99209127c0884/maven.gitignore | |||
|
|||
# maven |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure we want to change the .gitignore
file. I would think these entries would be in one's global .gitignore
file as the project itself does not generate these files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you want me to undo that change? it's not a huge issue from my perspective, but no ish if you'd rather have it without!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nah...I'll work around it...plus it's a change to an SVN project, so I've got to copy in your changes. That reminds me, maybe I'll take collections and promote it to being a git repo in the apache infrastructure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ha...pardon...wrong project. Nevermind about the copy bit. @britter just promoted CLI to git.
Yes aside from the |
Looking at CLI-217.patch, I was wondering if we shouldn't also include changes to |
Yes, I did see that PosixParser was also a part of the patch, but I thought not to touch it since it's marked as Deprecated (It might not have been before, the patch was written a while ago. Personally I would not expect changes to deprecated classes as a user at least). |
Hey :-) Any progress on this one? Anything I can do to make it go forward? Greets! |
@chtompki Any progress on this one? |
I'll try to get to it today. |
Working on this now. |
@chtompki Well, 216 is about disabling concatenated options, and 217 is about disabling partial matching; my patch implements the latter, i.e, you still have concatenated options, but can opt to disable partial matching:
So in the above, -ver could be a concatenated set of options, which, with the help of this patch, does not erronuously get interpreted as a partially matched long option 'version'. |
Agreed, pardon my misread. Pulling this in now...only considering documentation on partial matching. |
At request of Gary, I (re)created an old patch against the current code base to enable partial matching to be set as optional. This fixes problems for people that have short options that, concatenated, also partial-match a long option.
For example:
-d, --debug
-e, --extract
Is ambiguous in the case that partial matching is enabled. This patch allows a user to turn off partial matching in such a case.