regex-automata VS clap-rs

I believe you're the second person to tell me they were confused by this, so there are probably several others confused but didn't say anything. I've added a warning to the top of regex-automata's README.

For anyone following along at home, we're having a very helpful discussion about the implementation I posted in my sibling comment here: https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/issues/30

My current technique only gets applied to alternations of simple literals. But the idea is generalizeable and I speculate that it is actually impactful to generalize it.

(I could use '_ => {}' instead of 'None' to save a few more.)

I do find the 'if let' variant to be a bit easier to read. It's optimizing for a particular and somewhat common case, so it does of course overlap with 'match'. But I don't find this particular overlap to be too bad. It's usually pretty clear when to use one vs the other.

But like I said, I could live without 'if let'. It is not a major quality of life enhancement to me. Neither will its impending extensions. i.e., 'if let pattern = foo && some_booolean_condition {'.

[1]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/blob/fbae906823...

[2]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/blob/fbae906823...

(The work on regex-automata 0.2 has been underway for over a year now.](https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/tree/ag/work) There's a lot done, but still a lot more to go. Once that's done, regex proper should be pretty close to a thin layer that glues regex-syntax, regex-automata, memchr and aho-corasick together. I don't currently expect regex to grow any more dependencies than that. And as it is, aho-corasick and memchr are both optional dependencies. Right now, regex-syntax is the only required dependency, but regex-automata will be added to that list.

We will be using the library for Clap - A simple-to-use, efficient, and full-featured library for parsing command line arguments and subcommands.

I recently came across this question (and associated answer) on the clap repository. The answer given is a good one. But I wanted to expand with my own findings and practices, which spurred the motivation for this post.

We can also use tuple-like struct syntax and named-field struct syntax for enum variants within our enum; this is because unlike in other OOP languages, Rust enums are actually sum types. You can read more about how powerful Rust enums are in another article we wrote here. You can have optional arguments by simply wrapping the types in Option, but if you want to add a flag to a command you can use bool, since clap recognises that flags are either there or not there. Let's have a look at what this might look like:

I began by developing a wrapper for the CurseForge API, which turned out to be a lengthy and challenging process but constituted the bulk of the work. Next, I coded the CLI, which was relatively straightforward. Instead of using the clap crate, a Rust tool for generating CLIs, I opted for the following line of code:

By this time I had already gotten tired of parsing arguments by myself and had looked for something to help with that. I found a really dang good argument parsing library called clap. What makes it so cool is it's largely declarative for common uses. You simply mark up a struct with attributes, and the parser automatically generates the usage and all the argument parsing code.

How CLI arguments are handled (using clap).

Is this just referring to wrapping based on the terminal width? That is supported with the wrap_help feature though I have been considering making it a default feature.

CLI, use Clap. If you want to get fancy, use Tui.

As our CLI is getting more complex, we'll use the clap crate to parse the command line arguments.