Stablize `ArgMatches::grouped_value_of` Tracking Issue #2924

epage · 2021-10-23T14:57:49Z

Original request: #1026

Original PR: #2297

Feature flag: unstable-grouped

Known issues

Open question: how should this be exposed in clap_derive (see also clap_derive: Vec/Option<Vec> behavior is inconsistent with other types #1772)
Open question: update for new get/remove API (ArgMatches.grouped_values_of() does not support groups #4372)
Evaluate new names as this can be confusing with ArgGroup, occurrence is normally what we call this
Function is not documented (Add documentation for grouped_values_of #3551)

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

There is enough open work on this, we should probably not have it public yet, so putting it behind a gate. See clap-rs#2924

epage · 2021-11-04T18:40:04Z

For _t and _os variants, should we wait on #2683 which will remove the need for them? Or at least not block this feature on them?

pksunkara · 2021-11-05T07:24:53Z

I think that's a good idea, since I am getting the impression that we will probably be working on #2683 as the next big thing after v3 release. Unless you have different plans?

epage · 2021-11-05T13:27:44Z

Unless you have different plans?

That and a couple other changes that will lay the ground work for help, parser, and other validation changes. I don't think we need to cram them all in but should keep an eye for changes that make it easier to get them in later. #2911 is one example because it means we can attach the reflection traits to the AppParser without making them &mut to allow building since the type system will enforce that building has occurred.

Before: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple values, optional - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple values, min values of 1, optional After: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: `Vec` implies 0 or more, so should not imply required - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: Use over `Vec` to detect when no option being present when using multiple values Motivations: My priorities were: 1. Are we getting in the users way? 2. Does the API make sense? 3. Does the API encourage best practices? I was originally concerned about the lack of composability with `Option<Option<_>>` and `Option<Vec<_>>` (and eventually `Vec<Vec<_>>`). It prescribes special meaning to each type depending on where it shows up, rather than providing a single meaning for a type generally. You then can't do things like have `Option<_>` mean "required argument with optional value" without hand constructing it. However, in practice the outer type correlates with the argument occurrence and the inner type with the value. It is rare to want the value behavior without also the occurrence behavior. So I figure it is probably fine as long as people can set the flags to manually get the behavior they want. `Vec<_>` implies multiple occurrences, rather than multiple values. Anecdotally, whenver I've used the old `Arg::multiple`, I thought I was getting `Arg::multiple_occurrences` only. `Arg::multiple_values`, without any bounds or delimeter requirement, can lead to a confusing user experience but isn't a good default for these. On top of that, if someone does have an unbounded or a delimeter multiple values, they are probably also using multiple occurrences. `Vec<_>` is optional because a `Vec` implies 0 or more, so we stick to the meaning of the rust type. `Option<Vec<_>>` ends up matching `Vec<_>` which an raise the question of why have it. Some users might prefer the type. Otherwise, this is so users can no when the argument is present or not when using `min_values(0)`. Rather than defining an entire policy around this and having users customize it, or setting `min_values(0)` without the rest of a default policy, this gives people a blank slate to work from. Another option would have been to not infer a setting if someone sets a handful of settings manually, which would have avoided the confusion in Issue clap-rs#2599 but I see that being confusing (for someone who knows the default, they will be expecting it to be additive; which flags?) and brittle (as flags are added or changed, how do we ensure we keep this up?) Tests were added to ensure we support people customizing the behavior to match their needs. This is not solving: - `Vec<Vec<_>>`, see clap-rs#2924 - `(T1, T2)`, `Vec<(T1, T2)>`, etc, see clap-rs#1717 Fixes clap-rs#1772 Fixes clap-rs#2599 See also clap-rs#2195

Before: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple values, optional - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple values, min values of 0, optional After: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: `Vec` implies 0 or more, so should not imply required - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: Use over `Vec` to detect when no option being present when using multiple values Motivations: My priorities were: 1. Are we getting in the users way? 2. Does the API make sense? 3. Does the API encourage best practices? I was originally concerned about the lack of composability with `Option<Option<_>>` and `Option<Vec<_>>` (and eventually `Vec<Vec<_>>`). It prescribes special meaning to each type depending on where it shows up, rather than providing a single meaning for a type generally. You then can't do things like have `Option<_>` mean "required argument with optional value" without hand constructing it. However, in practice the outer type correlates with the argument occurrence and the inner type with the value. It is rare to want the value behavior without also the occurrence behavior. So I figure it is probably fine as long as people can set the flags to manually get the behavior they want. `Vec<_>` implies multiple occurrences, rather than multiple values. Anecdotally, whenver I've used the old `Arg::multiple`, I thought I was getting `Arg::multiple_occurrences` only. `Arg::multiple_values`, without any bounds or delimeter requirement, can lead to a confusing user experience but isn't a good default for these. On top of that, if someone does have an unbounded or a delimeter multiple values, they are probably also using multiple occurrences. `Vec<_>` is optional because a `Vec` implies 0 or more, so we stick to the meaning of the rust type. `Option<Vec<_>>` ends up matching `Vec<_>` which an raise the question of why have it. Some users might prefer the type. Otherwise, this is so users can no when the argument is present or not when using `min_values(0)`. Rather than defining an entire policy around this and having users customize it, or setting `min_values(0)` without the rest of a default policy, this gives people a blank slate to work from. Another option would have been to not infer a setting if someone sets a handful of settings manually, which would have avoided the confusion in Issue clap-rs#2599 but I see that being confusing (for someone who knows the default, they will be expecting it to be additive; which flags?) and brittle (as flags are added or changed, how do we ensure we keep this up?) Tests were added to ensure we support people customizing the behavior to match their needs. This is not solving: - `Vec<Vec<_>>`, see clap-rs#2924 - `(T1, T2)`, `Vec<(T1, T2)>`, etc, see clap-rs#1717 Fixes clap-rs#1772 Fixes clap-rs#2599 See also clap-rs#2195

Before: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple values, optional - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple values, min values of 0, optional After: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: `Vec` implies 0 or more, so should not imply required - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: Use over `Vec` to detect when no option being present when using multiple values Motivations: My priorities were: 1. Are we getting in the users way? 2. Does the API make sense? 3. Does the API encourage best practices? I was originally concerned about the lack of composability with `Option<Option<_>>` and `Option<Vec<_>>` (and eventually `Vec<Vec<_>>`). It prescribes special meaning to each type depending on where it shows up, rather than providing a single meaning for a type generally. You then can't do things like have `Option<_>` mean "required argument with optional value" without hand constructing it. However, in practice the outer type correlates with the argument occurrence and the inner type with the value. It is rare to want the value behavior without also the occurrence behavior. So I figure it is probably fine as long as people can set the flags to manually get the behavior they want. `Vec<_>` implies multiple occurrences, rather than multiple values. Anecdotally, whenever I've used the old `Arg::multiple`, I thought I was getting `Arg::multiple_occurrences` only. `Arg::multiple_values`, without any bounds or delimiter requirement, can lead to a confusing user experience and isn't a good default for these. On top of that, if someone does have an unbounded or a delimiter multiple values, they are probably also using multiple occurrences. `Vec<_>` is optional because a `Vec` implies 0 or more, so we stick to the meaning of the rust type. `Option<Vec<_>>` ends up matching `Vec<_>` which an raise the question of why have it. Some users might prefer the type. Otherwise, this is so users can no when the argument is present or not when using `min_values(0)`. Rather than defining an entire policy around this and having users customize it, or setting `min_values(0)` without the rest of a default policy, this gives people a blank slate to work from. Another option would have been to not infer a setting if someone sets a handful of settings manually, which would have avoided the confusion in Issue clap-rs#2599 but I see that being confusing (for someone who knows the default, they will be expecting it to be additive; which flags?) and brittle (as flags are added or changed, how do we ensure we keep this up?) Tests were added to ensure we support people customizing the behavior to match their needs. This is not solving: - `Vec<Vec<_>>`, see clap-rs#2924 - `(T1, T2)`, `Vec<(T1, T2)>`, etc, see clap-rs#1717 Fixes clap-rs#1772 Fixes clap-rs#2599 See also clap-rs#2195

Before: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple values, optional - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple values, min values of 0, optional After: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: `Vec` implies 0 or more, so should not imply required - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: Use over `Vec` to detect when no option being present when using multiple values Motivations: My priorities were: 1. Are we getting in the users way? 2. Does the API make sense? 3. Does the API encourage best practices? I was originally concerned about the lack of composability with `Option<Option<_>>` and `Option<Vec<_>>` (and eventually `Vec<Vec<_>>`). It prescribes special meaning to each type depending on where it shows up, rather than providing a single meaning for a type generally. You then can't do things like have `Option<_>` mean "required argument with optional value" without hand constructing it. However, in practice the outer type correlates with the argument occurrence and the inner type with the value. It is rare to want the value behavior without also the occurrence behavior. So I figure it is probably fine as long as people can set the flags to manually get the behavior they want. `Vec<_>` implies multiple occurrences, rather than multiple values. Anecdotally, whenever I've used the old `Arg::multiple`, I thought I was getting `Arg::multiple_occurrences` only. `Arg::multiple_values`, without any bounds or delimiter requirement, can lead to a confusing user experience and isn't a good default for these. On top of that, if someone does have an unbounded or a delimiter multiple values, they are probably also using multiple occurrences. `Vec<_>` is optional because a `Vec` implies 0 or more, so we stick to the meaning of the rust type. At least for me, I also rarely need a required with multiple occurrences argument but more often need optional with multiple occurrences. `Option<Vec<_>>` ends up matching `Vec<_>` which an raise the question of why have it. Some users might prefer the type. Otherwise, this is so users can no when the argument is present or not when using `min_values(0)`. Rather than defining an entire policy around this and having users customize it, or setting `min_values(0)` without the rest of a default policy, this gives people a blank slate to work from. Another option would have been to not infer a setting if someone sets a handful of settings manually, which would have avoided the confusion in Issue clap-rs#2599 but I see that being confusing (for someone who knows the default, they will be expecting it to be additive; which flags?) and brittle (as flags are added or changed, how do we ensure we keep this up?) Tests were added to ensure we support people customizing the behavior to match their needs. This is not solving: - `Vec<Vec<_>>`, see clap-rs#2924 - `(T1, T2)`, `Vec<(T1, T2)>`, etc, see clap-rs#1717 Fixes clap-rs#1772 Fixes clap-rs#2599 See also clap-rs#2195

Before: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple values, optional - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple values, min values of 0, optional After: - `bool`: a flag - `Option<_>`: not required - `Option<Option<_>>` is not required and when it is present, the value is not required - `Vec<_>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: `Vec` implies 0 or more, so should not imply required - `Option<Vec<_>>`: multiple occurrences, optional - optional: Use over `Vec` to detect when no option being present when using multiple values Motivations: My priorities were: 1. Are we getting in the users way? 2. Does the API make sense? 3. Does the API encourage best practices? I was originally concerned about the lack of composability with `Option<Option<_>>` and `Option<Vec<_>>` (and eventually `Vec<Vec<_>>`). It prescribes special meaning to each type depending on where it shows up, rather than providing a single meaning for a type generally. You then can't do things like have `Option<_>` mean "required argument with optional value" without hand constructing it. However, in practice the outer type correlates with the argument occurrence and the inner type with the value. It is rare to want the value behavior without also the occurrence behavior. So I figure it is probably fine as long as people can set the flags to manually get the behavior they want. `Vec<_>` implies multiple occurrences, rather than multiple values. Anecdotally, whenever I've used the old `Arg::multiple`, I thought I was getting `Arg::multiple_occurrences` only. `Arg::multiple_values`, without any bounds or delimiter requirement, can lead to a confusing user experience and isn't a good default for these. On top of that, if someone does have an unbounded or a delimiter multiple values, they are probably also using multiple occurrences. `Vec<_>` is optional because a `Vec` implies 0 or more, so we stick to the meaning of the rust type. At least for me, I also rarely need a required with multiple occurrences argument but more often need optional with multiple occurrences. `Option<Vec<_>>` ends up matching `Vec<_>` which can raise the question of why have it. Some users might prefer the type. Otherwise, this is so users can detect whether the argument is present or not when using `min_values(0)`. Rather than defining an entire policy around this and having users customize it, or setting `min_values(0)` without the rest of a default policy, this gives people a blank slate to work from. Another design option would have been to not infer any special-type settings if someone sets a handful of settings manually, which would have avoided the confusion in Issue clap-rs#2599 but I see that being confusing (for someone who knows the default, they will be expecting it to be additive; which flags disable inferred settings?) and brittle (as flags are added or changed, how do we ensure we keep this up?). Tests were added to ensure we support people customizing the behavior to match their needs. This is not solving: - `Vec<Vec<_>>`, see clap-rs#2924 - `(T1, T2)`, `Vec<(T1, T2)>`, etc, see clap-rs#1717 - `Vec<Option<_>>` and many other potential combinations Fixes clap-rs#1772 Fixes clap-rs#2599 See also clap-rs#2195

Relates to clap-rs#2924

tmccombs · 2022-06-24T04:25:52Z

With the new action API, and typed arguments API, I wonder if the best way to expose this would be as a new ArgAction::GroupedAppend action, which is similar to the ArgAction::Append action, but, then the argument type changes from T to Vec<T>, and captures all arguments for each occurance/group. So then get_many::<Vec<T>>() would return a ValuesRef<'_, Vec<T>>.

Or perhaps a more general API could be to have a way to specify an additional parsing function, that takes an iterator over the arguments to a single occurrence/group and returns a new single value. I'm not sure exactly how the typing would work on that though, if you were to allow using this in addition to a value_parser.

epage · 2022-06-26T03:06:18Z

Yes, ArgAction will hopefully help with this. I don't think we can reuse get_many for this as the value_parser setting the stored type happens at a different level than the processing of actions and so the underlying type cannot be modified. I suspect we'll need yet another set of functions. We'll need to distinguish their name from get_many / remove_many.

Depending on how this works out, my thought is to have ArgAction::Extend (current behavior) and ArgAction::Append (groups). I think the reason I used ArgAction::Append in v3.2 is because internally we are appending right now and if we add a new function it'll just expose that. We'd then just add Extend to not do that. The downside is that it will have a higher migration cost as people are using Append now when they mean Extend.

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs · 2022-12-10T05:52:57Z

For using the new get/remove API, what should the names of the functions be. In #4544 I used get_groups, remove_groups, etc. However, I'm not sure that is the best name, and would be happy to change it to something else. Some other possible options I can think of:

get_many_grouped
get_grouped
get_grouped_values
get_as_groups
get_many_per_occurrence

I don't have a strong preference, among those, and maybe there is one I haven't thought of that would be better.

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

epage · 2022-12-10T12:28:10Z

I don't remember where the original conversation happened but the problem is that group is overloaded with ArgGroup and can be confusing. We generally refer to each time an argument shows up as an "occurrence", so I think something like that in the name of each part of this feature would make sense.

For example, get_occurrences could possibly work now that we've removed occurrences_of. You had mentioned get_many_per_occurrence which I;m not as thrilled with but I am open to other ideas people have.

tmccombs · 2022-12-10T18:29:11Z

get_occurences would be fine with me.

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

epage · 2023-01-10T14:44:08Z

@tmccombs any concerns with stablizing?

tmccombs · 2023-01-10T16:04:03Z

Not from me

This let's you get an arguments values, grouped by the occurrence of the argument. Fixes clap-rs#2924

This let's you get an arguments values, grouped by the occurrence of the argument. Note: this does not stablize derive support. That requires a blocking change and can be enabled via `unstable-v5` flag. See clap-rs#4626 for an exploration of how we can make this easier in the future. Fixes clap-rs#2924

epage self-assigned this Oct 23, 2021

epage added a commit to epage/clap that referenced this issue Oct 23, 2021

Put grouped_values_of behind a feature gate

d45df74

There is enough open work on this, we should probably not have it public yet, so putting it behind a gate. See clap-rs#2924

epage mentioned this issue Oct 23, 2021

Put grouped_values_of behind a feature gate #2926

Merged

epage added a commit to epage/clap that referenced this issue Oct 23, 2021

Put grouped_values_of behind a feature gate

fca893a

There is enough open work on this, we should probably not have it public yet, so putting it behind a gate. See clap-rs#2924

epage added a commit to epage/clap that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2021

Put grouped_values_of behind a feature gate

001f0ec

There is enough open work on this, we should probably not have it public yet, so putting it behind a gate. See clap-rs#2924

epage added a commit to epage/clap that referenced this issue Oct 26, 2021

Put grouped_values_of behind a feature gate

bfa3884

There is enough open work on this, we should probably not have it public yet, so putting it behind a gate. See clap-rs#2924

pksunkara added C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an unstable feature C: matches labels Oct 27, 2021

This was referenced Nov 5, 2021

fix(derive): Define multiple policy for Special Types #2993

Closed

clap_derive: Vec/Option<Vec> behavior is inconsistent with other types #1772

Closed

epage mentioned this issue Dec 6, 2021

Stablize ArgMatches::grouped_value_of Tracking Issue epage/clapng#229

Open

5 tasks

epage added A-parsing Area: Parser's logic and needs it changed somehow. S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed C: matches labels Dec 8, 2021

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2022

Add documentation for grouped_values_of

93382cd

Relates to clap-rs#2924

tmccombs mentioned this issue Mar 10, 2022

Add documentation for grouped_values_of #3551

Merged

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2022

docs: document grouped_values_of

0645344

Relates to clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Mar 10, 2022

docs: Document grouped_values_of

2b86726

Relates to clap-rs#2924

epage mentioned this issue Sep 6, 2022

Clap derive sharkdp/fd#1067

Merged

epage mentioned this issue Nov 14, 2022

Partially parse args, capturing unknown args into a vec, rather than error #1404

Open

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 6, 2022

Refactor getting grouped values.

4bc7fd6

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 9, 2022

Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>>

c9dc781

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2022

Update grouped_values_of to use typed API and add support in derive #4544

Merged

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

fb07dfe

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

006e9aa

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

2a420ac

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 14, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

bd4d79f

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 16, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

3b2feb0

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 20, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

6e660dc

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 20, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

1f44263

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 21, 2022

feat: Add get/remove API for getting grouped values

6abc2cf

Change it to be more consistent with get_one and get_many and related functions. Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Dec 21, 2022

Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>>

276e61d

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Jan 3, 2023

Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>>

6ece07f

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs mentioned this issue Jan 3, 2023

Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>> #4600

Merged

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Jan 3, 2023

feat: Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>>

8309293

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Jan 4, 2023

feat: Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>>

710b1e2

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

tmccombs added a commit to tmccombs/clap that referenced this issue Jan 8, 2023

feat: Add support for deriving grouped options for Vec<Vec<T>>

eaa9273

Relates-To: clap-rs#2924

epage added a commit to epage/clap that referenced this issue Jan 13, 2023

feat: Stablize ArgMatches::get_occurrences

dd0200e

This let's you get an arguments values, grouped by the occurrence of the argument. Fixes clap-rs#2924

epage mentioned this issue Jan 13, 2023

feat: Stablize ArgMatches::get_occurrences #4635

Merged

epage closed this as completed in #4635 Jan 13, 2023

epage mentioned this issue Jun 14, 2023

Using index_of()/indices_of() with optional arguments that take optional values #2419

Open

2 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Stablize `ArgMatches::grouped_value_of` Tracking Issue #2924

Stablize `ArgMatches::grouped_value_of` Tracking Issue #2924

epage commented Oct 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

epage commented Nov 4, 2021

pksunkara commented Nov 5, 2021 •

edited

Loading

epage commented Nov 5, 2021

tmccombs commented Jun 24, 2022

epage commented Jun 26, 2022

tmccombs commented Dec 10, 2022

epage commented Dec 10, 2022

tmccombs commented Dec 10, 2022

epage commented Jan 10, 2023

tmccombs commented Jan 10, 2023

Stablize ArgMatches::grouped_value_of Tracking Issue #2924

Stablize ArgMatches::grouped_value_of Tracking Issue #2924

Comments

epage commented Oct 23, 2021 • edited Loading

epage commented Nov 4, 2021

pksunkara commented Nov 5, 2021 • edited Loading

epage commented Nov 5, 2021

tmccombs commented Jun 24, 2022

epage commented Jun 26, 2022

tmccombs commented Dec 10, 2022

epage commented Dec 10, 2022

tmccombs commented Dec 10, 2022

epage commented Jan 10, 2023

tmccombs commented Jan 10, 2023

Stablize `ArgMatches::grouped_value_of` Tracking Issue #2924

Stablize `ArgMatches::grouped_value_of` Tracking Issue #2924

epage commented Oct 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

pksunkara commented Nov 5, 2021 •

edited

Loading