Re^2: Parsing command line options without knowing what they are

This is the first thing I tried, but it doesn't do what I want. Yes, you can give it a hash reference and it will dump options in there, but you still have to name all the options that you want to support in the GetOptions() call. I have currently about 300 options that are supported, and this set will change over time. I don't want to have to keep going back to this code and changing the list here every time we add a new feature or remove an old one. What I need is something where I can give it a hash and it fills it up with whatever it finds on the command line without having to name each possible option.

--DrWhy

"If God had meant for us to think for ourselves he would have given us brains. Oh, wait..."

Comment on Re^2: Parsing command line options without knowing what they are

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Parsing command line options without knowing what they are by aquarium (Curate) on Nov 25, 2010 at 05:35 UTC
maybe Getopt::Regex?, and use a catch all regex with a sub to process each argument, e.g. store in hash or array. the hardest line to type correctly is: stty erase ^H	[reply]
Re^4: Parsing command line options without knowing what they are by DrWhy (Chaplain) on Nov 25, 2010 at 19:31 UTC
I looked at this module last night and it's interesting, but it's too generic. I'd have to write too much of my own code to make this work, which is what I was hoping to avoid. I started poking around in Getopts::* on CPAN and did find a module that comes close to what I want, but not quite: Getopt::Casual. This module just parses a command line pulling out anything that looks like an option/switch/flag/whatever and uses some heuristics to decide if the following argument should be considered a value for that option/switch/... or not. Unfortunately one of those heuristics is exactly the opposite of what I want, so I think I'll give up and write my own code for this. --DrWhy "If God had meant for us to think for ourselves he would have given us brains. Oh, wait..."	[reply]