# OptionParser - no short options or incomplete options **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [21 February 2008 23:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685 "2008-02-21T23:34:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Richardson1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e99b99/32.png) [@Bryan\_Richardson1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Bryan_Richardson1)\ **Post date:** [21 February 2008 23:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/1 "2008-02-21T23:34:21Z")
Hello all, Is it possible to force only complete, long options to be used in OptionParser? I'm wanting to force users to enter the entire option for certain destructive actions... I've tried only including a '--long\_option' as one of the options, but if I use '-l' or even '--lon' as the option it still executes the code specified for '--long\_option'. Any and all help is appreciated!!! > **···** > > -- > Bryan > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/). ---
**Author:** ![7stud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/57b2e6/32.png) [@7stud](https://rubytalk.org/u/7stud)\ **Post date:** [22 February 2008 00:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/2 "2008-02-22T00:11:57Z")
Bryan Richardson wrote: > Hello all, > > Is it possible to force only complete, long options to be used in > OptionParser? I'm wanting to force users to enter the entire option for > certain destructive actions... > > I've tried only including a '--long\_option' as one of the options, but > if I use '-l' or even '--lon' as the option it still executes the code > specified for '--long\_option'. > > Any and all help is appreciated!!! > > -- > Bryan How about: require 'optparse' val\_I\_will\_use\_for\_destructive\_actions = nil opts = OptionParser.new do |opts|   opts.on('--long\_option') do |val|     val\_I\_will\_use\_for\_destructive\_actions = '--long\_option'   end end opts.parse! if val\_I\_will\_use\_for\_destructive\_actions   puts 'destroy stuff' end > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Richardson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@Bryan\_Richardson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Bryan_Richardson)\ **Post date:** [24 February 2008 23:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/3 "2008-02-24T23:19:26Z")
Thanks for responding 7stud. However, I'm not clear on how this will solve my problem. By typing -l, I'll still execute this option. I've also come across the case where if I have an option for --migrate VERSION (required input) and I use the option -m, I'll get an error because the version was not included. However, if I use -mig, I get no error and a version value of nil is passed... Please help! > **···** > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:11 PM, 7stud -- \ wrote: > > > Bryan Richardson wrote: > > \> Hello all, > > \> > > \> Is it possible to force only complete, long options to be used in > > \> OptionParser? I'm wanting to force users to enter the entire option for > > \> certain destructive actions... > > \> > > \> I've tried only including a '--long\_option' as one of the options, but > > \> if I use '-l' or even '--lon' as the option it still executes the code > > \> specified for '--long\_option'. > > \> > > \> Any and all help is appreciated!!! > > \> > > \> -- > > \> Bryan > > > > How about: > > > > require 'optparse' > > > > val\_I\_will\_use\_for\_destructive\_actions = nil > > > > opts = OptionParser.new do |opts| > > opts.on('--long\_option') do |val| > >    val\_I\_will\_use\_for\_destructive\_actions = '--long\_option' > > end > > end > > > > opts.parse! > > > > if val\_I\_will\_use\_for\_destructive\_actions > > puts 'destroy stuff' > > end > > -- > > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![7stud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/57b2e6/32.png) [@7stud](https://rubytalk.org/u/7stud)\ **Post date:** [25 February 2008 00:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/4 "2008-02-25T00:20:00Z")
Bryan Richardson wrote: > Thanks for responding 7stud. However, I'm not clear on how this will > solve > my problem. By typing -l, I'll still execute this option. You've given no reason why forcing your users to type more than they have to is required. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Richardson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@Bryan\_Richardson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Bryan_Richardson)\ **Post date:** [25 February 2008 02:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/5 "2008-02-25T02:06:18Z")
I'd just hate for someone to fat-finger a simple option and end up deleting an entire database worth of data. Am I overlooking something? Also, what if I wanted -l to do one thing, and --long\_option to do something different? I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves here, I'm just wondering if forcing long options is doable... > **···** > > -- > Thanks! > Bryan > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:20 PM, 7stud -- \ wrote: > > > Bryan Richardson wrote: > > \> Thanks for responding 7stud. However, I'm not clear on how this will > > \> solve > > \> my problem. By typing -l, I'll still execute this option. > > > > You've given no reason why forcing your users to type more than they > > have to is required. > > -- > > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![7stud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/57b2e6/32.png) [@7stud](https://rubytalk.org/u/7stud)\ **Post date:** [25 February 2008 03:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/6 "2008-02-25T03:00:22Z")
Bryan Richardson wrote: > I'd just hate for someone to fat-finger a simple option and end up > deleting > an entire database worth of data. Am I overlooking something? Also, > what > if I wanted -l to do one thing, and --long\_option to do something > different? I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves here, I'm just > wondering if forcing long options is doable... > > -- > Thanks! > Bryan Personally, I think all the optparse modules in any language are more trouble than they are worth. Invariably, you can examine ARGV yourself and come up with a solution quicker than trying to figure out how the overly complex optparse modules work. In particular, the ruby optparse module appears to have a design flaw: it doesn't send the option that was actually entered to the on() method. 1) This seems to work: require 'optparse' opts = OptionParser.new do |opts|   opts.on('--long\_option') do |val|     #destroy stuff     puts "in first on"   end   opts.on('--long\_optio') do |val|     #do nothing     puts "in 2nd on"   end end opts.parse! 2) Or, you can always do this: require 'optparse' puts 'start:' puts ARGV prohibited = ['-l', '--l'] ARGV.delete\_if do |str\_in\_argv|   prohibited.include?(str\_in\_argv) end puts 'end:' puts ARGV opts = OptionParser.new do |opts|   opts.on('--long\_option') do |val|     #destroy stuff     puts "This won't output for -l or --l short form."   end end opts.parse! > Also, what > if I wanted -l to do one thing, and --long\_option to > do something different? require 'optparse' opts = OptionParser.new do |opts|   opts.on('--long\_option') do |val|     puts 'in first on'   end   opts.on('-l') do |val|      puts 'in 2nd on'   end end opts.parse! > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Richardson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@Bryan\_Richardson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Bryan_Richardson)\ **Post date:** [25 February 2008 03:22 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/optionparser-no-short-options-or-incomplete-options/44685/7 "2008-02-25T03:22:56Z")
Thanks again 7stud. Your suggestions have answered my ultimate question, which is "is it possible to have OptionParser only parse on fully matching options." The answer obviously seems to be "no." I'll be implementing your 2nd suggestion. > **···** > > -- > Bryan > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, 7stud -- \ wrote: > > > Bryan Richardson wrote: > > \> I'd just hate for someone to fat-finger a simple option and end up > > \> deleting > > \> an entire database worth of data. Am I overlooking something? Also, > > \> what > > \> if I wanted -l to do one thing, and --long\_option to do something > > \> different? I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves here, I'm just > > \> wondering if forcing long options is doable... > > \> > > \> -- > > \> Thanks! > > \> Bryan > > > > Personally, I think all the optparse modules in any language are more > > trouble than they are worth. Invariably, you can examine ARGV yourself > > and come up with a solution quicker than trying to figure out how the > > overly complex optparse modules work. > > > > In particular, the ruby optparse module appears to have a design flaw: > > it doesn't send the option that was actually entered to the on() method. > > > > 1) This seems to work: > > > > require 'optparse' > > > > opts = OptionParser.new do |opts| > > opts.on('--long\_option') do |val| > >     #destroy stuff > >    puts "in first on" > > end > > > > opts.on('--long\_optio') do |val| > >    #do nothing > >    puts "in 2nd on" > > end > > end > > > > opts.parse! > > > > 2) Or, you can always do this: > > > > require 'optparse' > > > > puts 'start:' > > puts ARGV > > > > prohibited = ['-l', '--l'] > > > > ARGV.delete\_if do |str\_in\_argv| > > prohibited.include?(str\_in\_argv) > > end > > > > puts 'end:' > > puts ARGV > > > > opts = OptionParser.new do |opts| > > opts.on('--long\_option') do |val| > >     #destroy stuff > >    puts "This won't output for -l or --l short form." > > end > > end > > > > opts.parse! > > > > \> Also, what > > \> if I wanted -l to do one thing, and --long\_option to > > \> do something different? > > > > require 'optparse' > > > > opts = OptionParser.new do |opts| > > opts.on('--long\_option') do |val| > >     puts 'in first on' > > end > > > > opts.on('-l') do |val| > >     puts 'in 2nd on' > > end > > end > > > > opts.parse! > > > > -- > > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C).