leonetienne/Hazelnupp
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 3 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Readme.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Leonetienne 2021-06-03 11:43:20 +02:00
parent 781e046122
commit 8ceae638f0
1 changed files with 16 additions and 11 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

27
readme.md
View File

@ -4,9 +4,9 @@
# Hazelnupp # Hazelnupp
is a simple, easy to use command line parameter parser. is a simple, easy to use command line parameter parser.
Hazelnupp does not support windows-, or bsd-style arguments. Only unix-style. Hazelnupp does not support windows-, or bsd-style arguments. Only linux-style.
What is the unix-style? This: What is the linux-style? This:
``` ```
# Using a long parameter # Using a long parameter
a.out --long-parameter 1234 a.out --long-parameter 1234
@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ int main(int argc, char** argv)
} }
``` ```
What about these lists? What about lists?
```cpp ```cpp
#include "Hazelnupp.h" #include "Hazelnupp.h"
@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ int main(int argc, char** argv)
{ {
Hazelnupp args(argc, argv); Hazelnupp args(argc, argv);
const auto& myList = args["--my-list.GetList(); // std::vector<Value*> const auto& myList = args["--my-list"].GetList(); // std::vector<Value*>
for (const auto* it : myList) for (const auto* it : myList)
{ {
@ -156,12 +156,12 @@ int main(int argc, char** argv)
## Constraints ## Constraints
> That's all cool and stuff, but this looks like a **LOT** of error-checking and not elegant at all! How would i *actually* use this? > That's all cool and stuff, but this looks like a **LOT** of error-checking and not elegant at all! How would i *actually* use this?
For exactly this reason, there are constraints. With this, you can control what the data looks like! Constraints serve mainly two purposes: For exactly this reason, there are constraints. With this, you can control what the data looks like! Constraints serve two main purposes:
### Requiring data ### Requiring data
With `ParamConstraint::Require()` you can declare that a paramater must either always be present, or provide a default value. With `ParamConstraint::Require()` you can declare that a paramater must either always be present, or provide a default value.
* If a parameter is not present, but has a default value, it will be automatically created. * If a parameter is not present, but has a default value, it will be automatically created.
* If a parameter is not present, but has no default value, an exception will be thrown. * If a parameter is not present, and has no default value, an exception will be thrown.
Minimal working example: Minimal working example:
```cpp ```cpp
@ -185,16 +185,20 @@ int main(int argc, char** argv)
``` ```
### Type safety ### Type safety
With type safety you can always be sure that you are working with the correct type! With type safety you can always be certain that you are working with the correct type!
By creating a type-constraint you force Hazelnupp to use a certain type. By creating a type-constraint you force Hazelnupp to use a certain type.
If a supplied type does not match, but is convertible, it will be converted. If a supplied type does not match, but is convertible, it will be converted.
If it is not convertible, an exception will be thrown.
These conversions are: These conversions are:
* int -> [float, string, list] * int -> [float, string, list, void]
* float ->[int, string, list] * float ->[int, string, list, void]
* string -> [list], * string -> [list, void]
* list -> [void]
* void -> [list]
The conversions 'to-list' just create a list with a single entry. The conversions `*->list` just create a list with a single entry (except for `void->list` which produces an empty list).
The `*->void` conversions just drop their value.
Minimal working example: Minimal working example:
```cpp ```cpp
@ -230,6 +234,7 @@ pc.required = true;
args.RegisterConstraints({pc}); args.RegisterConstraints({pc});
``` ```
What doesn't work is inserting multiple constraints for one key. It will just discard the oldest one. But that's okay because one can describe all possible constraints for a single key in **one** struct.
## More examples? ## More examples?
Check out the unit tests! They may help you out! Check out the unit tests! They may help you out!