Hi, sebb wrote:
[snip] >>> /** a map of the required options */ >>> + // N.B. This can contain either a String (addOption) or an >>> OptionGroup (addOptionGroup) >>> + // TODO this seems wrong >>> private List<Object> requiredOpts = new ArrayList<Object>(); >>> >> >> Indeed, I also spotted this and failed to resolve it, as the logic in the >> parsers is somehow taken advantage of it in a way I do not yet fully >> understand. > > Me neither. > > Maybe the code would still work if the entries were always OptionGroups. > This could perhaps be done by converting the Option into a > single-entry OptionGroup and storing that, rather than storing the > Option key String. > In theory that might work ... Or create a package local marker interface OptionEntry and let both classes implement it. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
