Add program.opts namespace for all options

[russpos]

Add opts namespace, which holds all options and values. Unlike the Commander object itself, it will have values for all options. Addresses open issues #29 and #19.

Includes updates to existing test suite.

[tj]

if we change it to .options im down

[russpos]

Won't that conflict with how it's currently using .options (as an Array of option objects)?

[tj]

arrays can have props, iirc that one is private anyway

[russpos]

That seems to defeat the purpose of namespacing them. Take this example:

program
  .option('-a, --anchovies', 'Add anchovies?')
  .option('-c, --cheese [type]', 'optionally specify the type of cheese', 'mozzarella');

program.parse(['node', 'test']);
console.log('Expected: ', program.opts);
console.log('Not expected: ', program.options);

Ouput:

Expected:  { anchovies: false, cheese: 'mozzarella' }
Not expected:  [ { flags: '-a, --anchovies',
    required: 0,
    optional: 0,
    bool: true,
    short: '-a',
    long: '--anchovies',
    description: 'Add anchovies?' },
{ flags: '-c, --cheese [type]',
    required: 0,
    optional: -14,
    bool: true,
    short: '-c',
    long: '--cheese',
    description: 'optionally specify the type of cheese' },
anchovies: false,
cheese: 'mozzarella' ]

[tj]

let's just rename the internal one to _options

[georgesnelling]

Any decision on fixing this? I hit it when I tried to create an option named --version which failed in a very weird way because conflicted with an internal method. Seems pretty bad to have these namespaces conflict. And creating an option named --version seems like a pretty common case, as are several others. No opinion about this particular fix, but would like to see the namespaces separated somehow. Thanks TJ.

[tj]

@georgesnelling --version is mapped to .version(val) so people can see what version your program is, you dont have to handle that one manually

[georgesnelling]

Headsmack! I've been using it so long that I didn't bother reading the docs when I hit the problem, but went straight to issues. It does fail in a rather confusing way if you miss that nice feature, but that's a corner case. Thanks for all your work. -g

[georgesnelling]

Played with this a bit more. Aesthetically, shouldn't the module throw if the user enters an option that is reserved?

[SomeKittens]

Can you bring this up to date with Commander?

[thethomaseffect]

Closed as out of date, thanks for the pull though!