similar to: parsing /proc/cmdline

Hi,I've been trying to code through CommandLine the options I want my tool accepts, but I find quite impossible to achieve robustly what I need .Look, I want the tool accepts a list of arguments in a particular order. For this goal, I know the cl::Positional flag. But, the problem is that the first argument must be one of a set of options (like a kind of subcommand of the tool). In my case,

I am trying to set up an auto attendant for the first time, and am having trouble getting to the submenu. My extensions.conf file looks like this: [incoming] exten=> s,1,Background,menu1 exten=> s,2,Wait,20 exten=> s,3,Goto,s|1 exten=> 1,1,Playback,option1 exten=> 2,1,Playback,option2 exten=> 3,1,Playback,option3 It is my understanding that asterisk treats the digits entered

Hi Daniel, I would like to go deeper with CommandLine and I was asking if you could help me again. Look, following the same example you put in the last message: ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> --arg1 --arg2) | ( <option3> --arg1 ) What I really really want is the same except I don't want the "--" prefix is present in any of the arguments. ./prog <option1>

On 10 May 2013 09:44, Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I would like to go deeper with CommandLine and I was asking if you could > help me again. > > Look, following the same example you put in the last message: > > ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> --arg1 --arg2) | ( <option3> --arg1 ) > > What I

Hi Daniel, Just in the moment you replied my message, I was rewriting it as I hadn't noticed it hadn't a correct format. Sorry for that and thanks for answering it anyway. > ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> --arg1 --arg2) | ( <option3> --arg1 ) > Yes, that is exactly what I need. It's a pity commandLine doesn't implement that possibility. So I will do what

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your answer. > I am considering fixing the bug in the LLVM CommandLine library but is > going to be a long time before I can look at it. So don't wait for me > to do that. > Ok, ok, but, if you end up fixing this, please keep me post. > If you are really desperate to have the command line options in the > way you want they you may need to implement

Hi, I've been trying to code through CommandLine the options I want my tool accepts, but I find find quite impossible to achieve robustly what I need. Look, I want the tool accepts a list of arguments in a particular order. For this goal, I know the cl::Positional flag. But, the problem is that the first argument must be one of a set of options. In my case, only the three next commands are

Hi -- I'm using lmer for binomial data. I am trying to replicate estimates provided by Agresti (2002, Categorical data analysis, Wiley) using abortion data in table 10.13 (estimates provided in table 12.3 p. 505). I fit the same model using these three commands: a1 <- lmer(resp ~ sex + option1 + option2 + (1|id), data=abort,family=binomial, method = c("AGQ")) a2 <-

On 05/06/2017 06:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback? > > > I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are

On 05/06/2017 06:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback? > > > I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are

Hello! Very sorry for a probably very simple question - I looked but did not find an answer in the archives. I have a table "counts" (below) that shows counts by Option within each of my 2 groups. However, my groups have different sizes (N1=255 and N2=68). Table "prop" shows the resulting proportions within each group. I would like to compare the proportions in 2 groups using

Hi all. I was wondering if anyone had a successful exampel of using the "add printer command" with cups so that the windows print migrator could be utilised. Seeing as Jerry as spent time on this it would be a shame not to know how to use it. ;-) I'm guessing that it would be along the lines of: add printer command = lpadmin option1 option2 && cupsaddsmb option1 but

Hello, I just downloaded the MareyMap: an R-based tool and followed the instructions: Option1: Click "Packages-Install package(s) from local zip files", it showed the followed error messages: > utils:::menuInstallLocal() Error in read.dcf(file.path(pkgname, "DESCRIPTION"), c("Package", "Type")) : cannot open the connection In addition: Warning

I recently discovered that multi-line RUN statements can actually be interrupted with non-RUN lines, without changing the behaviour. In other words, you can do something like: # RUN: some command --option1 \ ## Comment # CHECK: check something # RUN: --option2 And you'd end up with "some command --option1 --option2" being run. It's rather surprising behaviour, and not one

Hi all. I want to write module for kerberos configuration. I planned configure realms by using subclasses like in saz-sudo module: ... ### Adding sudoers definition (includes installation of sudo) sudo::conf { ''admins'': priority => 10, content => ''%admins ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL'', } ... But this module just createing file in

I am writing a GUI for my R script. It is a very basic form consisting of textboxes and buttons. I tried to run the following example to learn how to read value currently entered into the textbox: ( it requires tcltk/tcltk2 packages ) # Create the widgets base <- tktoplevel() list <- tklistbox(base, width = 20, height = 5) entry <- tkentry(base) text <-

There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that. If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about: - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted - we use

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have > output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, > they check debug info. Adding

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 01:03 James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > I don't know if lit's parser is up to this (I suspect it isn't), but could > you add a comment to the end/in the middle of a RUN? Something like `# RUN: > do some thing | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=UNUSED --allow-unused-prefixes > ## FIXME? That would avoid changing the line