A more precise way to specify flags #1133
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
newhoggy
requested review from
Jimbo4350,
carbolymer,
disassembler,
kevinhammond and
palas
as code owners
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
newhoggy
commented
Apr 10, 2025
| , f.format | ||
| , if f.options.isDefault then " (default)" else "" | ||
| , "." | ||
| ] |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can still have flexibility on the help for the flag by providing a rendering function like this.
parserFromFlags offers that flexibility and parserFromFormatFlags takes that flexibility away so we can be consistent.
newhoggy
commented
Apr 10, 2025
newhoggy
force-pushed
the
newhoggy/new-way-to-specify-flags
branch
from
8c202b9 to
3ab349e
Compare
newhoggy
commented
Apr 10, 2025
newhoggy
force-pushed
the
newhoggy/new-way-to-specify-flags
branch
from
3ab349e to
db9f485
Compare
newhoggy
commented
Apr 10, 2025
newhoggy
commented
Apr 10, 2025
newhoggy
commented
Apr 10, 2025
carbolymer
previously requested changes
Apr 10, 2025
carbolymer
reviewed
Apr 10, 2025
Jimbo4350
previously requested changes
Apr 10, 2025
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the overall changes but OverloadedRecordDot & NoFieldSelectors need to be removed: #1133 (comment) and #1133 (comment)
newhoggy
force-pushed
the
newhoggy/new-way-to-specify-flags
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e8cef26 to
0df0d3a
Compare
newhoggy
force-pushed
the
newhoggy/new-way-to-specify-flags
branch
from
0df0d3a to
3fbc48c
Compare
newhoggy
dismissed stale reviews from Jimbo4350 and carbolymer
Comments addressed
Jimbo4350
previously requested changes
Apr 14, 2025
newhoggy
commented
Apr 14, 2025
carbolymer
reviewed
Apr 15, 2025
carbolymer
reviewed
Apr 15, 2025
carbolymer
reviewed
Apr 15, 2025
carbolymer
reviewed
Apr 15, 2025
carbolymer
previously requested changes
Apr 15, 2025
carbolymer
reviewed
Apr 15, 2025
Jimbo4350
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2025
| import Options.Applicative (Parser) | ||
| import Options.Applicative qualified as Opt | ||
|
|
||
| -- | Create a parser from a help rendering function and list of flags. |
newhoggy
force-pushed
the
newhoggy/new-way-to-specify-flags
branch
from
6538092 to
9e9f0bb
Compare
newhoggy
force-pushed
the
newhoggy/new-way-to-specify-flags
branch
from
9e9f0bb to
c5bd903
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Addresses #566 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changelog
Context
A new way to specify flags in code that makes the default flag specification more concise and DRY whilst making it easier to standardise on flag help wording whilst still providing flexibility.
How to trust this PR
Highlight important bits of the PR that will make the review faster. If there are commands the reviewer can run to observe the new behavior, describe them.
Checklist