Change the argument handling code to be more flexible.

[jgraham]

Instead of just exposing a function that checks for hardcoded
arguments, expose a function that can check against a passed list of
arguments.

[jgraham]

r? @andreastt

[andreastt]

I think this makes sense, but I would prefer better documentation of check_arg.

[andreastt]

I don’t think “given string” is very good documentation. I suggest something like this, provided names is renamed matches:

Check that a platform-specific argument string arg or arbitrary length (for example /Profile C:\\some\\path or -p test -something -else) contains one of the flags given in the array of matches, which should be given without leading dashes, e.g. &["p", "profile"].

[jgraham]

That isn't really right. It assumes that you have an array of arguments and are passing each arg from the array down into the function. It won't tokenize an argument string into an array of arguments.

I also think that matches is a weird name, because it sounds like the result of a regex.

[andreastt]

That isn't really right. It assumes that you have an array of arguments and are passing each arg from the array down into the function.

Yes, so the caller will typically do e.g. args.iter().any(|x| check_arg(x, &["profile", "p"])) { … } to check if each argument, x, matches either profile or p in the platform-specific ways of the current system.

It won't tokenize an argument string into an array of arguments.

That’s not what I meant either. The first argument is the input as-is, the second argument is an array of platform-agonstic matches. If that gives you associations to regular expressions, I don’t think ‘names’ is any better.

The bottom line is that the documentation isn’t helpful in explaining what the expected input and output is. From the way it is written now, I could imagine using it like this:

check_args("-profile /foo", &["-profile", "--profile", "/profile"]);

The intention of the function is obviously not to do a ["-profile", "--profile", "/profile"].includes("profile") check.