Eric Smith <e...@trueblade.com> added the comment:
[I doubt my terminology is exactly correct in this post, but I've tried my best
to make it so.)
The more I think about this the more I realize we can't implement a parser that
doesn't make guesses about '-' prefixed args and that works with arparse's
existing behavior with respect to optional arguments.
For example:
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument('--foo', nargs='?')
parser.add_argument('--bar', nargs='?')
print parser.parse_args(['--foo', '--bar', 'a'])
print parser.parse_args(['--foo', 'x', '--bar', 'a'])
Unless the parser tries to guess that --bar is an optional argument by itself,
it can't know that --foo has an argument or not.
I guess it could look and say that if you called this with '--foo --baz', then
'--baz' must be an argument for '--foo', but then you could never have an
argument to '--foo' named '--bar', plus it all seems fragile.
Maybe this new parser (as Steven described it) wouldn't allow a variable number
of arguments to optional arguments? That is, nargs couldn't be '?', '*', or
'+', only a number.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue9334>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
