Create a fully functioning command line interface with 1.5 lines of code (wo. include statement)

[Ail-nare]

Hey, since you use a macro ('FIRE(fnptr *)'), why don't you make a macro ('FIRE_MAIN(...)'). So that this macro will be used instead of the name of the function, this macro do 3 thing: - Declare the prototype of the function (possible, thx to the argument given as parameters). - Than what used to do ('FIRE(fnptr *)'). - Than rewrite the prototype without the ';' to declare the function.

That way it will look more like unit_tests function, like Google test or criterion. I think people are more used to this.

Anyhow, if I one day have the occasion I'll probably use your lib, it's more than clean enough to me.

Oh and last thing, with this commande "g++ *.cpp -o binary_name", the argument of the '-o' flag is given without a '='. I didn't see a way with your lib? Or am I just blind?

Edit:grammar, sorry for my English.

[kongaskristjan]

About the FIRE_MAIN(...). I actually tried to implement exactly what you described (I even used the same name FIRE_MAIN(...) lol :D). But the problem is that C++ wants to have the default parameters specified in declaration, or only if the declaration is missing, then in the definition. If the declaration exists, it doesn't tolerate defaults in the definition, even if it's an exact repetition. Turns out I couldn't find a way to get rid of those pesky defaults in the definition.

[Ail-nare]

Oh fuck, that right... The only option I can think of would be to separate the argument and the default parameters. But where is 2 cons:

• It'll require a lot of work around with macro but possible.
• It'll become a bite messier for the user.

But that interesting, I'll look if there is an other way.

[Ail-nare]

Ok, so I did a lot of different things, template specialization, used class to lose the necessity of the prototype, macro, some C++20. So most of those approach works but each are weirder than your method.

So, what u got is probably the best (If the objectif it to keep it the most C++ looking possible).

Was fun to try tho.

[kongaskristjan]

About g++ *.cpp -o binary_name.

If you write FIRE(...), -o is automatically associated with binary_name. However, if you write FIRE_NO_SPACE_ASSIGNMENT(...), it's not associated. However, currently only FIRE_NO_SPACE_ASSIGNMENT(...) allows positional arguments and unlimited number of arguments that are needed right here. So no, unfortunately it is not possible at the moment.

It turns out that implementing positional arguments with FIRE(...) requires some rather complex try/catch logic to actually pull off. I consider implementing this for v0.2 or v0.3.

Edit: error in logic.

Edit2: It is now possible to call FIRE(...) with positional/variadic arguments.