Does this problem persist on the current main?
Is there an existing issue for this?
Current Behavior
I tried the following code:
parser.add_option(options.k_mer_size, sharg::config{.description = "The size of the k-mer",
.long_id = "k-mer-size",
.short_id = 'k',
.validator = sharg::arithmetic_range_validator{10, 30}});
It fails, because the member order is not alphabetical.
Expected Behavior
I would expect the member order to be the same as in the documentation:
http://docs.seqan.de/sharg/1.0.0/structsharg_1_1config.html
Doxygen was apparently set up to sort the members alphabetically, but the person implementing it had a different order in mind π This means that the user needs to look up the source-code.
The easiest fix is to also sort alphabetically in the code. [That's also an easy rule-of-thumb for your users, so they don't need to look it up!]
Steps To Reproduce
foo
Environment
Anything else?
No response
Does this problem persist on the current main?
Is there an existing issue for this?
Current Behavior
I tried the following code:
parser.add_option(options.k_mer_size, sharg::config{.description = "The size of the k-mer", .long_id = "k-mer-size", .short_id = 'k', .validator = sharg::arithmetic_range_validator{10, 30}});It fails, because the member order is not alphabetical.
Expected Behavior
I would expect the member order to be the same as in the documentation:
http://docs.seqan.de/sharg/1.0.0/structsharg_1_1config.html
Doxygen was apparently set up to sort the members alphabetically, but the person implementing it had a different order in mind π This means that the user needs to look up the source-code.
The easiest fix is to also sort alphabetically in the code. [That's also an easy rule-of-thumb for your users, so they don't need to look it up!]
Steps To Reproduce
foo
Environment
Anything else?
No response