Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

Hi, On 26.01.2016 15:21, Dmitry Volosnykh wrote: Igor, as far as I can see form documentation QCommandLineParser is able to support commands too. For example, see http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qcommandlineparser.html#clearPositionalArguments. How does you library compare to just mentioned functionalit

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

On 26.01.2016 16:31, Dmitry Volosnykh wrote: From what I see by the moment, QtArg usage help message displays list of supported commands with all the details on using them, while QCommandLineParses provides context dependant usage messages. For example, at the top level it may list supported

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

>From what I see by the moment, QtArg usage help message displays list of supported commands with all the details on using them, while QCommandLineParses provides context dependant usage messages. For example, at the top level it may list supported commands (not sure if it can provide commands' arg

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

Hi, On 26.01.2016 15:21, Dmitry Volosnykh wrote: Igor, as far as I can see form documentation QCommandLineParser is able to support commands too. For example, see http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qcommandlineparser.html#clearPositionalArguments. How does you library compare to just mentioned functionalit

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

Igor, as far as I can see form documentation QCommandLineParser is able to support commands too. For example, see http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qcommandlineparser.html#clearPositionalArguments. How does you library compare to just mentioned functionality? If it does something more and/or better, have you c

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

On 26.01.2016 15:00, Ben Lau wrote: On 26 January 2016 at 19:52, Igor Mironchik > wrote: Hi, On 26.01.2016 14:11, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 25/01/16 13:48, Igor Mironchik wrote: Hello guys, I'm glad to present QtA

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

On 26 January 2016 at 19:52, Igor Mironchik wrote: > Hi, > > On 26.01.2016 14:11, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> On 25/01/16 13:48, Igor Mironchik wrote: >> >>> Hello guys, >>> >>> I'm glad to present QtArg version 2.0.0 >>> >>> In new version were >>> >>> * implemented commands in command line,

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

Hi, On 26.01.2016 14:11, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 25/01/16 13:48, Igor Mironchik wrote: Hello guys, I'm glad to present QtArg version 2.0.0 In new version were * implemented commands in command line, * improved hierarchy of argument classes, * improved help system, * improved synt

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

On 25/01/16 13:48, Igor Mironchik wrote: Hello guys, I'm glad to present QtArg version 2.0.0 In new version were * implemented commands in command line, * improved hierarchy of argument classes, * improved help system, * improved syntax, * fixed different issues. Maybe it would be

[Interest] QtArg version 2.0.0

Hello guys, I'm glad to present QtArg version 2.0.0 In new version were * implemented commands in command line, * improved hierarchy of argument classes, * improved help system, * improved syntax, * fixed different issues. http://imironchik.blogspot.com.by/2016/01/qtarg-version-200.html

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

On Tuesday, 22 October 2013 10:00:05 CEST, Bo Thorsen wrote: > Yes, I don't recall when a feature was ever backported. Some third parties do so -- e.g. the mimetypes-qt4 project [1], as used [2] by Trojita. Cheers, Jan [1] https://github.com/pasnox/mimetypes-qt4 [2] http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=t

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

Den 22-10-2013 01:35, Mark skrev: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Bob Hood wrote: >> On 10/21/2013 4:09 PM, Mark wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Igor Mironchik >>> wrote: Hi folk, I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. It's highly recommended to upda

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

22.10.2013 08:50, Igor Mironchik ?: Hi folk, I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. It's highly recommended to update to new version because of in version 1.4.0 * Improved help. Now help prints with fixed line length (by default 79 symbols). Line length can be changed.

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

>> Hi folk, >> >> I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. >> >> It's highly recommended to update to new version because of in version 1.4.0 >> >>* Improved help. Now help prints with fixed line length (by default 79 >> symbols). >> Line length can be changed. >>* Now QtMultiArg

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Bob Hood wrote: > On 10/21/2013 4:09 PM, Mark wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Igor Mironchik >> wrote: >>> Hi folk, >>> >>> I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. >>> >>> It's highly recommended to update to new version because of in version 1.4.

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

On 10/21/2013 4:09 PM, Mark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Igor Mironchik > wrote: >> Hi folk, >> >> I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. >> >> It's highly recommended to update to new version because of in version 1.4.0 >> >> * Improved help. Now help prints with fixed line l

Re: [Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Igor Mironchik wrote: > Hi folk, > > I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. > > It's highly recommended to update to new version because of in version 1.4.0 > > * Improved help. Now help prints with fixed line length (by default 79 > symbols). > Line le

[Interest] QtArg version 1.4.0 released

Hi folk, I'm pleased to provide new version of QtArg. It's highly recommended to update to new version because of in version 1.4.0 * Improved help. Now help prints with fixed line length (by default 79 symbols). Line length can be changed. * Now QtMultiArg can process more than one valu

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 11/04/12 19:44, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 18.20.52, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> If you have started to look into this, let us know quickly which >>> modifications you have to make. Some of the transition needs might be >>> unintentional and we still have time

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 20.01.56, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Well, Apple and Microsoft broke that promise long ago already. The widgets > are hardly enough to continue following the style and look and feel of > their desktop platforms. One codebase without #ifdefs will not look > complet

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 18.20.52, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > If you have started to look into this, let us know quickly which > > modifications you have to make. Some of the transition needs might be > > unintentional and we still have time to fix them. > > Mostly differences with id

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 11.17.11, Stephen Chu wrote: > On 4/11/12 11:02 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > And notwithstanding the language choice, we are completely convinced that > > the current QPainter drawing model is obsolete. It was correct in the > > 1990s and early 2000s, but it's

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 11/04/12 18:02, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 17.46.55, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> [...] >> Lots of people seem to think that porting from Qt 4 to 5 would require >> the same amount of refactoring work as the change from Qt 3 to 4. All I >> can say is "don't pa

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 16.59.09, R. Reucher wrote: > But you shouldn't really "fear" that... "superior technology" will never be > based on JavaScript. And again, I see it as a very high-level alternative > and nothing else. We should keep it that way and not push it by discussing > t

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 4/11/12 11:02 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > And notwithstanding the language choice, we are completely convinced that the > current QPainter drawing model is obsolete. It was correct in the 1990s and > early 2000s, but it's no longer how graphics hardware works. I totally agree on replacing the

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 17.46.55, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 11/04/12 16:03, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > I understand that. Yes, I expect Qt 4 to be used for a long time too, but > > I > > really, really hope that there is no push to come to shove. I really > > expect > > that transi

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On Wednesday 11 April 2012 16:46:55 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > So this isn't why I "fear" Qt 5. What makes me uneasy is how Qt seems > to slowly (but surely?) deprecate C++ for JavaScript. I believe all GUI > code should be in C++. JavaScript, like all dynamic and weakly-typed > languages, alway

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 11/04/12 16:03, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 10.34.58, Rui Maciel wrote: > [...] >> Honestly, I expect Qt4 to be kept in use for a long time. And if push >> comes to shove, I suspect that some Qt4 users will be more keen to >> invest in a Qt4 fork or even ditchi

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 10.34.58, Rui Maciel wrote: > On 04/10/2012 07:46 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Which is a pity. There's a lot of functionality in the KDE libs that you > > should use. You should consider transforming your Qt-only app into a KDE > > one. > Why? I thought I ha

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012 10.51.04, Rui Maciel wrote: > On 04/11/2012 02:27 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Yes, you're reading too much. Desktop is still important. > > > > But there's a limit of how much we can force contributors who are > > interested on mobile to work on desktop too.

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On Wednesday 11 April 2012 11:51:04 Rui Maciel wrote: > On 04/11/2012 02:27 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Yes, you're reading too much. Desktop is still important. > > > > But there's a limit of how much we can force contributors who are > > interested on mobile to work on desktop too. Right now,

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 04/11/2012 02:27 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Yes, you're reading too much. Desktop is still important. > > But there's a limit of how much we can force contributors who are interested > on mobile to work on desktop too. Right now, those people seem to be the > majority. if you want to see the n

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 04/10/2012 09:23 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.53.01, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> Bundling KDE libs? It's much simpler to not use KDE functionality. >> Otherwise you end up with a big size that is unsuitable for small >> utility applications. > > Ah, but so

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > I don't expect every project that was based on Qt to be rewritten with a > rebase on Qt 5 in mind, let alone in a 18 month time frame.  This is > simply unreasonable. huh? who said anything about rewrites? Qt 5 is Qt 4, reorganised, with a few

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 04/10/2012 08:39 PM, Jason H wrote: > Sound idiotic, but it would be an improvement. Some improvements come at a cost which isn't acceptable for multiple reasons, including practical ones. It's one of those "how things should be Vs how things really are" kind of deals. Rui Maciel _

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 04/10/2012 07:46 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 21.15.29, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> Furthermore, Qt application can't use KDE libraries, because then they >> would be KDE applications, not Qt applications. Qt 4 application run >> very nice in KDE. Qt 5 appl

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 19.18.33, Bob Hood wrote: > On 4/10/2012 5:01 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > So I repeat again the call for help: if you're interested in seeing this > > happen sooner rather than later, help out. /Especially if you're interested > in the desktop more than mobile

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 4/10/2012 5:01 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > So I repeat again the call for help: if you're interested in seeing this happen sooner rather than later, help out. /Especially if you're interested in the desktop more than mobile./ That statement bothers me a bit. Am I reading too much into what y

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 23.44.54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > I wish we could do the same for Qt. Keeping it linking statically is very > > hard and we break every other release because no one tests. > > > > BTW, it's known to be broken in Qt 5. > > So goodbye to self-contained executa

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:44:54 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > So goodbye to self-contained executables? That doesn't sound like a > good idea :-/ Being able to ship a single *.exe is quite a nice thing > to have. "Self-contained" is not the same as static linking! Actually, I build binaries t

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 10/04/12 23:23, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> And I don't need an installer. People value single executables that can >> be copied and run from everywhere (internal hard disks, USB flash >> sticks, whatever.) And I'm not sure I could link KDE statically into a >> single *.exe like I do with Qt (an

Re: [Interest] QtArg

I agrees 100% with Nikos On 10/04/2012, at 21:53, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 10/04/12 22:38, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.30.54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> On 10/04/12 22:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07.49, Niko

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.53.01, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Bundling KDE libs? It's much simpler to not use KDE functionality. > Otherwise you end up with a big size that is unsuitable for small > utility applications. Ah, but sometimes you end up either reinventing the wheel (comman

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 11/04/2012, at 5:53 AM, ext Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 10/04/12 22:38, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.30.54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> On 10/04/12 22:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07.49, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 10/04/12 22:38, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.30.54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> On 10/04/12 22:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07.49, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Which is a pity. There's a lot of functionality in the KDE

Re: [Interest] QtArg

Sound idiotic, but it would be an improvement. From: Nikos Chantziaras To: interest@qt-project.org Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [Interest] QtArg On 10/04/12 22:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.30.54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 10/04/12 22:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07.49, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >>> Which is a pity. There's a lot of functionality in the KDE libs that you > >>> should use. You should c

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 10/04/12 22:24, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07.49, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> Which is a pity. There's a lot of functionality in the KDE libs that you >>> should use. You should consider transforming your Qt-only app into a KDE >>> one. >> That is really bad

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 22.07.49, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > Which is a pity. There's a lot of functionality in the KDE libs that you > > should use. You should consider transforming your Qt-only app into a KDE > > one. > That is really bad advise :-/ It would mean non-KDE users (abo

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 10/04/12 21:46, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 21.15.29, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> On 10/04/12 17:32, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 17.17.09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: I'd recommend to support Igor Mironchik instead, since it's

Re: [Interest] QtArg

Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 10/04/12 17:32, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 17.17.09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> On 10/04/12 15:54, Thiago Macieira wrote: On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 12.00.18, Igor Mironchik wrote: > Here is very simple command li

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 21.15.29, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 10/04/12 17:32, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 17.17.09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> I'd recommend to support Igor Mironchik instead, since it's for Qt 4, > >> which we will be using for a

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 10/04/12 17:32, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 17.17.09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> On 10/04/12 15:54, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 12.00.18, Igor Mironchik wrote: Here is very simple command line arguments parser. L

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 17.24.48, Igor Mironchik wrote: > 10.04.2012 17:17, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> There's another one being developed for Qt 5: > >> > >> http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commits/cli_parser > >> > >> I recommend everyone who has ever developed a parser to join L

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 17.17.09, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 10/04/12 15:54, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 12.00.18, Igor Mironchik wrote: > >> Here is very simple command line arguments parser. > >> > >> Look at it: http://code.google.com/p/qtargpars

Re: [Interest] QtArg

10.04.2012 17:17, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> There's another one being developed for Qt 5: >> >> http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commits/cli_parser >> >> I recommend everyone who has ever developed a parser to join Laszlo's effort >> to >> make sure we meet your needs by Qt 5.1. I can't find c

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On 10/04/12 15:54, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 12.00.18, Igor Mironchik wrote: >> Here is very simple command line arguments parser. >> >> Look at it: http://code.google.com/p/qtargparser/ > > There's another one being developed for Qt 5: > > http://qt.gitorious.org

Re: [Interest] QtArg

On terça-feira, 10 de abril de 2012 12.00.18, Igor Mironchik wrote: > Here is very simple command line arguments parser. > > Look at it: http://code.google.com/p/qtargparser/ There's another one being developed for Qt 5: http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commits/cli_parser I recommend everyone w

[Interest] QtArg

Here is very simple command line arguments parser. Look at it: http://code.google.com/p/qtargparser/ This project needs you donations. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest