fix: Macro benchmarks

[WildCryptoFox]

• (+) in wrong location in macro definition (Sorry).
• value_name(s) and possible_value(s), macro implementation repeats over non plural functions
• --long-option-2 -> --long_option_2 Is this a problem? If so - feel free to use the manual function via long("long-option-2")
• [positional] expands to value_name("positional") takes_value(true) not index(1)

[WildCryptoFox]

r? @kbknapp

[Vinatorul]

And so tests will be handy 😉

[WildCryptoFox]

Yepp =D

[WildCryptoFox]

NOTE: My macro builder is going to need some good docs soon... This is one good sample of just why. It is just a bit too flexible (, and strict!) 😉

[WildCryptoFox]

@Vinatorul I think @yo-bot needs to learn your labeling chore. 😉

---

Reoccurring that I see you manually setting these. I'm not used to having the permission to set these labels... I should get in a habit of it now.

[Vinatorul]

Now it will get labeling job.
Tommorow bug fixing
Next weak new features implementation
And next month you will find yourself jobless!

Stop bots invasion! 😝

[WildCryptoFox]

Ahh.. The Automation Takeover Begins.

[kbknapp]

👍 great work!

I'm ok with --some_option and the like so long as it's well documented. And also documented that they can just use the normal method when in doubt ;)

[Vinatorul]

don't forget to use @yo-bot