This is mostly targeted at reducing startup time for no-op commands
within *very* large applications, like deno (see #4774).
This comes at the cost of 1.1 KiB of binary size
This has been implemented for 3 years without much traction for
finishing it up.
The subcommand use case can be worked around by creating `Command`s that
just include the relevant logic, very similar to the default subcommand
examples in `git` / `git-derive`.
Using this for flags is covered by #4793.
Without `unstable-replace` being enabled, this still cut 5 KiB from
`cargo bloat --release --example git`.
Closes#2836Closes#2011
One challenge with this is finding something that generally works.
Making this work perfectly for one setting will make it inconsistent
with other settings and take up more binary size / compile time.
So in the end, I felt like just mirroring rustc (with a bit more
brevity) seemed like a decent experiment. This will be evaluated by the
feedback on release.
This is a small part of #4638
Adding "found" might seem minor but I feel it has a slight softening on the message. It also maintains scanability as it is at the end and short.
As this is a one-off message change and not a styling issue to be consistent with, I think this is safe to put in a patch release.
In text communication you need to balance
- Scannability, putting the most important information upfront
- Brevity so people don't get lost in the message
- Softness to help ease people through a frustrating experience
I feel we weren't doing great on the first two points, so tried to
iterate on the messages to improve them. I hope we aren't suffering too
much on the third point as a side effect.
This is an intermediate solution for #4408. As there were no agreeed
upon goals, I went with what I felt read well and that I saw commonly
used on non-clap commands.
- "information" isn't really a necessary word.
- I originally favored `Print this help` but realied that doesn't read
correctly in completions.
- Besides being shorter, the reason for the flipped short/long hint is
it gives people the context they need for scanning, emphasizing
"summary" and "more".
Fixes#4409
From
https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/diagnostics.html#suggestion-style-guide
> Suggestions should not be a question. In particular, language like
> "did you mean" should be avoided. Sometimes, it's unclear why a
> particular suggestion is being made. In these cases, it's better to be
> upfront about what the suggestion is.
>
> The message may contain further instruction such as "to do xyz, use"
> or "to do xyz, use abc".
Inspired by #2766
The writer is less convenient and isn't offering any performance
benefits of avoidign the extra allocations, so let's render instead.
This supersedes #3874Fixes#3873
This is a cheap pass at creating this to allow cutting out the cost of
rich error information / programmatic error information.
This cuts about 20 KiB off of the binary.
There is more we could cut out, like collecting of used arguments for
the usage, but I want to keep the conditionals simple.
This was ported over from the usage parser which modeled after docopt.
We just never got around to implementing the rest of the syntax.
However, when considering this as a standalone feature, an
`arg!(--flag <value>)`, outside of other context, should be optional.
This is how the help would display it.
Fixes#4206
In looking at other help output, I noticed that they use two spaces, in
place of clap's 4, and it doesn't suffer from legibility. If it
doesn't make the output worse, let's go ahead and make it as dense so we
fit more content on the screen.
This is a part of #4132
In switching to title case for help headings (#4123), it caused me to
look at "subcommand" in a fresh light. I can't quite put my finger on
it but "Subcommand" looks a bit sloppy. I also have recently been
surveying other CLIs and they just use "command" as well.
All of them are commands anyways, just some are children of others
(subcommands) while others are not (root or top-level commands, or just
command). Context is good enough for clarifying subcommands from root
commands.
This is part of #4132
In surveying various tools and CLI parsers, I noticed they list the
subcommands first. This puts an emphasis on them which makes sense
because that is most likely what an end user is supposed to pass in
next.
Listing them last aligns with the usage order but it probably doesn't
outweigh the value of getting a user moving forward.
I see them fulfilling two roles
- A form of bolding
- As a callback to their placeholder in usage
However, it is a bit of an unpolished look and no other CLI seems to do
it. This looks a bit more proefessional. We have colored help for
formatting and I think the sections relation to usage will be clear
enough.
The main breakinge change cases:
- `&[char]`: now requires removing `&`
- All other non-ID `&[_]`: hopefully #1041 will make these non-breaking
Fixes#2870
This reduces ambiguity in how the different "multiple" parts of the API
interact and lowrs the amount of API surface area users have to dig
through to use clap.
For now, this is only a matter of cleaning up the public API. Cleaning
up the implementation is the next step.
Previous behavior:
- They'd be sorted by default
- They'd derive display order if `DeriveDisplayOrder` was set
- This could be set recursively
- The initial display order value for subcommands was 0
New behavior:
- Sorted order is derived by default
- Sorting is turned on by `cmd.next_display_order(None)`
- This is not recursive, it must be set on each level
- The display order incrementing is mixed with arguments
- This does make it slightly more difficult to predict
`multicall` allows you to have one binary expose itself as multiple
programs, like busybox does. This also works well for user clap for
parsing REPLs.
Fixes#2861
By removing all arguments, we've switched from an "unrecognized
argument" error to a "unrecognized subcommand" error. While the wording
has room for improvement, its at least progress on #2862.
