I've long wished I could "declare" my CLI arguments in a Markdown-like syntax (e.g. using `[]` and `<>` to denote optional vs. required arguments) and have some library figure it all out for me.
Doesn't look like it's maintained anymore, sadly. All of the major language repos have long threads trying to figure out who can pick up maintenance of the project.
I go the other way: use optparse-applicative[1] to generate argument parsers for the configs, and generate help commands for each (sub)commands from each parser.
> I think docopt is a better choice as it has more traction
Is docopt still being maintained/developed? As another comment indirectly mentions: the original python repo seems abandoned. The other language ports still have more recent updates though.
Consider protobufs, you have to do a bit more work but if you're going to schematize an API (which a CLI is when you get down to it) it's a good universal option.
No, but the "arg" in "argdown" is close enough to the typical abbreviation of CLI arguments that it isn't that much of a stretch to imagine someone being primed that way to misread that word.
For anybody wondering, argumentation here is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_framework I found the idea quite interesting within my master's program during AI class. My prof. research group was trying to use this to detect fake news.
Interesting. I've been working on a side project that combines argument mapping with actual syntax checking - meaning that if an argument's conclusion is purported to be "proven" via the sufficiency of its premises and sub premises, then a counterpoint further down in the graph will notify the conclusion that its truth value is now in doubt. I wonder if it could use argdown as an input method.
That sounds interesting; the weakness of the examples provided with Argdown is that they come to a conclusion, but they don't indicate why that conclusion was chosen over the other option, and it's not clear that the conclusions actually address everything.
This is dying for some sort of example on the front page. I clicked around trying to figure out what it was, assuming it was some sort of argument syntax for CLI tools.
I haven't gone beyond reading the page, but the intent matches my intuition that we need tools for better following (and agreeing upon?) good "geometries" for arguments.
When corporate email threads start getting lengthy, I like to flow* them. Too often it's not even a question of premises and conclusions, but rather I find technical threads get hung up on quibbling minor issues, while failing to engage ("arguing past each other") wrt fairly major points.
As a sample, I just glanced at the UBI discussion there. Each claim pro and con, when clicked upon, seems to break into another level of claims pro and con. And apparently crowdsourced as well. Looks like a fantastic resource. Very much what I was hoping for.
I've been scouring the web for things like this for a while; open source tools that can represent an argument process in a visual manner reminiscent of a workflow. There is obviously kialo.com, but it doesn't quite tick all the boxes IMO. Interest in this kind of thing additionally seems to have died out a few years back. Are we waiting for an AI solution perhaps?
In the meantime Argdown perhaps is the closest thing available.
