Is this the correct behavior ?

[tj]

Is this the correct behavior ?

[ggilder]

Hi, I believe that's actually related to the underlying behavior of OptionParser. What I think you want to do is set up the option like this:

c.option '--[no-]some-switch', 'Some switch that does something'

OptionParser will then correctly parse "--some-switch" as some_switch = true, and "--no-some-switch" as some_switch = false.

Let me know if that solves the issue for you... we could probably also add something about that to the documentation to make it more clear.

-Gabriel

[hrbg]

Hi Gabriel:

First thanks for your rapid response

This is a problem of what I expected the gem should do, and what it really does.

For me is really weird that if I run something like this

$ test testme --no-foo-bar # => options.no_foo_bar is false
and then I do
$ test testme --foo-bar # => options.foo_bar is true

I expected that the return value were true if you call the option and false or nil if you don't call the option

About your example. In my case I don't need both options --some-switch and --no-some-switch I simply need the --no-* option

[ggilder]

I see - I definitely understand why that is a little confusing. However that is the behavior of OptionParser (which is part of the Ruby standard library) - it reacts a different way to options that start with "no-". Because that's part of the Ruby standard library, any Ruby command-line tool would parse that type of option the same way... so I feel like it's not really up to commander to change this behavior.

In your case, if you only need the "--no-*" option, I guess you could just test if it's false vs. nil.

Hope that helps!

[hrbg]

Yeap I was afraid of false vs nil. thanks Gabriel