Should show sub commands when there are no args? #123
Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
-
(actually |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
(after using mask some more) my question also applies to sub commands as well. ## a
### b
#### c
~~~sh
echo "I'm c"
~~~ running error: 'mask a b' requires a subcommand, but one was not provided
USAGE:
mask a b <SUBCOMMAND>
For more information try --help now with either of the below will reveal the sub command
mask-a-b
USAGE:
mask a b <SUBCOMMAND>
FLAGS:
-h, --help Prints help information
-V, --version Prints version information
SUBCOMMANDS:
help Prints this message or the help of the given subcommand(s)
c So my initial argument holds even more with sub commands. Why not just reveal the sub command without adding |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Good question... First is that mask's help/--help command is powered by clap and I believe we don't customize any part of the output. I do want to upgrade or even replace Second, when you run |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I know I can add
--help
(whichmask
telling me that without the args) and that shows the sub commands. But why not showing the sub commands with justmask
? Curious if there is any down sides on that.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions