4 ms·

Am I the only one that thought this was a universal format for describing CLI arguments?

jszymborski 4y ago
I certainly thought that.
radlad 4y ago
I've long wished I could "declare" my CLI arguments in a Markdown-like syntax (e.g. using `[]` and `<>` to denote optional vs. required arguments) and have some library figure it all out for me.
- Flimm 4y ago
  You're in for a treat: that library already exists and has been ported to multiple programming languages: http://docopt.org http://docopt.org
  - gkfasdfasdf 4y ago
    Wow thanks, that does look interesting!
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Doesn't look like it's maintained anymore, sadly. All of the major language repos have long threads trying to figure out who can pick up maintenance of the project.
- lgas 4y ago
  https://docopt.org/ https://docopt.org/ may be of interest.
- AndrewDucker 4y ago
  PowerShell does exactly that for its scripts. And then uses those definitions for autocomplete, validation, etc.
- tmpfs 4y ago
  I had a go at this a while ago, uses the markdown AST to build a program descriptor: https://github.com/mkdoc/mkcli https://github.com/mkdoc/mkcli I think docopt is a better choice as it has more traction but this experiment showed me a pure markdown implementation is feasible.
  - vanderZwan 4y ago
    Neat! > I think docopt is a better choice as it has more traction Is docopt still being maintained/developed? As another comment indirectly mentions: the original python repo seems abandoned. The other language ports still have more recent updates though.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Consider protobufs, you have to do a bit more work but if you're going to schematize an API (which a CLI is when you get down to it) it's a good universal option.
  - gkfasdfasdf 4y ago
    How would that work exactly? So args resolve into a protobuf struct? But how are human readable args parsed into a protobuf?
- endgame 4y ago
  I go the other way: use optparse-applicative[1] to generate argument parsers for the configs, and generate help commands for each (sub)commands from each parser. [1]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/optparse-applicative https://hackage.haskell.org/package/optparse-applicative
layer8 4y ago
I’ve never seen “argumentation” used in that context.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  No, but the "arg" in "argdown" is close enough to the typical abbreviation of CLI arguments that it isn't that much of a stretch to imagine someone being primed that way to misread that word.
RustyRussell 4y ago
No, I clicked through and got confused, came here for enlightenment. Thanks!
turboponyy 4y ago
I figured the same.
snthpy 4y ago
No

I certainly thought that.

I've long wished I could "declare" my CLI arguments in a Markdown-like syntax (e.g. using `[]` and `<>` to denote optional vs. required arguments) and have some library figure it all out for me.

Flimm 4y ago
You're in for a treat: that library already exists and has been ported to multiple programming languages: http://docopt.org http://docopt.org
- gkfasdfasdf 4y ago
  Wow thanks, that does look interesting!
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Doesn't look like it's maintained anymore, sadly. All of the major language repos have long threads trying to figure out who can pick up maintenance of the project.
lgas 4y ago
https://docopt.org/ https://docopt.org/ may be of interest.
AndrewDucker 4y ago
PowerShell does exactly that for its scripts. And then uses those definitions for autocomplete, validation, etc.
tmpfs 4y ago
I had a go at this a while ago, uses the markdown AST to build a program descriptor: https://github.com/mkdoc/mkcli https://github.com/mkdoc/mkcli I think docopt is a better choice as it has more traction but this experiment showed me a pure markdown implementation is feasible.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  Neat! > I think docopt is a better choice as it has more traction Is docopt still being maintained/developed? As another comment indirectly mentions: the original python repo seems abandoned. The other language ports still have more recent updates though.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Consider protobufs, you have to do a bit more work but if you're going to schematize an API (which a CLI is when you get down to it) it's a good universal option.
- gkfasdfasdf 4y ago
  How would that work exactly? So args resolve into a protobuf struct? But how are human readable args parsed into a protobuf?
endgame 4y ago
I go the other way: use optparse-applicative[1] to generate argument parsers for the configs, and generate help commands for each (sub)commands from each parser. [1]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/optparse-applicative https://hackage.haskell.org/package/optparse-applicative

layer8 4y ago

I’ve never seen “argumentation” used in that context.

vanderZwan 4y ago
No, but the "arg" in "argdown" is close enough to the typical abbreviation of CLI arguments that it isn't that much of a stretch to imagine someone being primed that way to misread that word.

RustyRussell 4y ago

No, I clicked through and got confused, came here for enlightenment. Thanks!

turboponyy 4y ago

I figured the same.

snthpy 4y ago