Better handling of option names with multiple words #169
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Looks great, thanks! |
leejarvis
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2015
Better handling of option names with multiple words
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
At the moment, the behaviour is a bit odd for options with multiple word names (e.g.
--long-option-name) where you end up with strange behaviour onSlop::Resultwhere you end up with odd symbol keys, which look like:"long-option-name"rather than:long_option_nameas you'd naturally expected.I've made various fixes to make this work as you'd expect, as well as supporting features like the
?accessor methods.Keen to hear your thoughts on this. Seems like a nicer and more idiomatic Ruby behaviour. Tested it somewhat but you may well have a view on testing it more or less.