Re: [PATCH] Multiple --site options

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:17:44AM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 25/07/2011 19:44, szgyg wrote:
>> On 7/22/2011 3:33 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2011 10:28, szgyg wrote:
>>>> I want to say `./setup.exe --site <ports> --site <local-repo>', so
>>>> there it is.
>>>
>>> However, I think it needs a clearer description: What it actually does is
>>> (i) add infrastructure for handling options which are repeated, and (ii)
>>> correctly handle multiple --site, --pubkey and -sexpr-pubkey options.
>> 
>> 2011-07-25  SZAVAI Gyula <szgyg-Vx2QyAHHJOs5Z0SDYBDJZg@public.gmane.org>
>> 
>>     * libgetopt++/src/StringArrayOption.cc: New file.
>>     Infrastructure for repeated string options.
>>     * libgetopt++/include/getopt++/StringArrayOption.h: Ditto.
>>     * libgetopt++/Makefile.am: Add new files.
>>     * site.cc (SiteSetting::SiteSetting): Handle multiple --site
>>     options.
>>     * crypto.cc (verify_ini_file_sig): Handle multiple --pubkey and
>>     --sexpr-pubkey options.
>>     * package_meta.cc (packagemeta::isManuallyWanted): Handle
>>     multiple --packages and --categories options.
>> 
>>> Would it make sense for the new StringArrayOption class derive from or
>>> have members of type StringOption, rather than duplicating some of it?
>> 
>> We can move some common code from {Bool,StringArray,String}Option up to the
>> Option class. I will be AFK in the next two weeks, after that I will send a
>> follow-up patch.
>
>Looking at this again, I withdrawn my comment on putting common code in the
>Option class.  This patch matches the existing design of having no code in the
>Option class.
>
>So can we apply this? It's correct, and it works.

Do you want to do it Jon?  I haven't looked at it in detail (i.e., at
all) but if you think it's ok, that works for me.

cgf