Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Please improve the docs #89

Open
banister opened this issue Mar 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Please improve the docs #89

banister opened this issue Mar 26, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@banister
Copy link

banister commented Mar 26, 2024

I like this project but the docs are very disorganized and hard to understand.

I just want the docs to be organized with headings so it's easy to know:

  • How to create a boolean flag option
  • How to create an option that takes a value (and/or set a default)

Just finding the answers to those simple questions is very difficult with the current doc organization. I'm not the only one, multiple people i talked to had the same issue.

Please improve this! Cos this is otherwise a great project! :)

@banister
Copy link
Author

banister commented Mar 26, 2024

I see now that you use cmdl[{"-h", "--help"}] for a boolean option but cmd({"-t", "--time"}) for an option that takes a param. I personally find this confusing and not discoverable - the syntaxes also look very similar and easy to over-look.

Why not just do something like this instead:

cmd.flag({"-h", "--help"}) and cmd.param({"-t", "--time"}) this is instantly much more intuitive, and discoverable - IMO anyway!

@adishavit
Copy link
Owner

Thank you for your feedback 🙏
It makes me happy to know you and your colleagues are finding Argh! useful.

Re: your first comment:
I actually made great efforts to make the docs accessible and complete.
I'm glad you pointed out that it is still lacking.
Could I trouble you to make a PR to add the missing section to the docs? Maybe a Q&A or Cookbook Section?

As for your second request, it kinda breaks the lib's minimalist syntax and approach but I am not immediately against. It has never come up. Let me think about it.
If you make a (separate) PR for this too, we could consider and discuss it in the PR thread.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants