Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Blocks for scope control Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:03:32 +0100 Lines: 33 Message-ID: <9o2c8qF5knU1@mid.individual.net> References: <9ni009F82hU1@mid.individual.net> <9nvp52Fe8iU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net Mr2utJU8mniESLGgRjyMgQXLYOOy1H6RQbuwPT6CxhLJG8Kas= Cancel-Lock: sha1:BCUmcSFxD8ILgFeZNIDR1RAqmSE= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11577 On 21.01.2012 15:41, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > On 12-01-21 08:25 AM, Robert Klemme wrote: >> On 20.01.2012 02:16, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>> On 12-01-16 02:55 AM, Robert Klemme wrote: >>>> On 15.01.2012 22:49, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> I agree that this boilerplate is tedious, regardless how you do it. But >> I didn't guess that your description was about such a scenario. ;-) > In summary, looking at my actual application command line options > (including which option datatypes I actually use), something like a > dozen of them [1], one could create half a dozen convenience methods > that would be used instead. > > I don't think I can credibly argue that using the methods would be > worse. I am just not convinced it would be better. :-) Fair enough. > But I'd like to think I am more sensible now: good command line design > is based on lots of usability experience with a dash of artistry. I'd say this is true for so many areas of software engineering. :-) Thank you for the elaborate explanation! Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/