Sweet! Similar to docopt. It's humbling to see how short this can be in Haskell, compared to my C++ code https://github.com/ridiculousfish/docopt_fish (though in my defense the C++ version is more featureful, with better error messages).
We're likely to build this sort of thing in directly to the fish shell: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/478 . From a usage spec, you get tab-completions, syntax highlighting, argument parsing and validation, and user help.
It's sort of silly that there is no machine-parseable usage spec for common Unix commands. Once the docopt support is integrated, I hope to create a repository of usage specs that anyone can contribute to, similar to explainshell.com
This has come at a good time. I've been using git, composer and Laravel's artisan thinking that this sort of thing would improve my productivity massively.
File name completions are great but option/sub-command completions could really speed up my workflow.
Nice to see tools make tasks easier, but I do not like the trend of using every other new (I know Haskell is not new) language for it. I don't need the large download and compile time for a simple tool.
We're likely to build this sort of thing in directly to the fish shell: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/478 . From a usage spec, you get tab-completions, syntax highlighting, argument parsing and validation, and user help.
It's sort of silly that there is no machine-parseable usage spec for common Unix commands. Once the docopt support is integrated, I hope to create a repository of usage specs that anyone can contribute to, similar to explainshell.com