jarro2783

I'll take a look at the `options:` thing too. Where do you want to use `string_view`? Any functionality with that can always be optional dependent on the C++ version.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure exactly how you would want to use it.

That's because `cxxopts` is removing the arguments that it has recognised. I will be working on a side-effect free version of the `parse` function at some point in the future.

I can't see any reason not to do that. I can't really work on it right now, but I will look at a PR.

For the core library, this would go against my philosophy of making the library simple and _just work_. There are a few outstanding requests that I have had for various...

I think I can write that down somewhere.

As I've said in several previous issues #44 #25, I don't think that this sort of logic belongs in this library. The main reasoning is that usually options are not...

> I think this is critical issue it breaks open/close principle. e.g.: script calls: app.exe -p "test1" after some time I've updated application with the additional parameter and now script...

That's a separate discussion then which I will move to another issue. Although it is easy to do, the main problem with unrecognised options is how to recognise their arguments....

I still have some plans to address this. I wanted to make a separate validator that you can run against the parsed options.