paul j3 added the comment:

Patch tests are added to an existing 'Lib/test/test_argparse.py' file.  I use 
existing test cases as a pattern any new tests.

---------------------

Your test file runs fine with the patch I proposed for Issue 9334.

---------------------

The argparse code uses '_negative_number_matcher' for 2 purposes

1) to test whether an option_string looks like a negative number, and set the 
'self._has_negative_number_optionals' attribute.

    parser.add_argument('-2')
    parser.add_argument('-1.234')

2) to test whether an argument string (an element of sys.argv) looks like one 
of those option_strings, or is an argument (positional or argument to your 
'-a').

The 'type' in for your '-a' argument is separate issue.  That is used convert a 
string to a number, float, complex or what ever, and raise an error it if can't 
do so.

In your case './test.py -a -1e5' fails because '-1e5' fails the 2nd test, and 
thus is not recognized as an argument to '-a'. Understanding the details of 
this requires digging into the logic of the _parse_optional() method.

'./test.py -a-1e5' or './test.py -a=-1e5' work because the number is correctly 
recognized as an argument.

For issue 9334 I looked at generalizing '_negative_number_matcher' as you did.  
But unless you want to use something like:

    parser.add_argument('-1.2e-34')

and set the 'self._has_negative_number_optionals' to '[True]', the matcher 
doesn't need to be more general.

It's only the test in '_parse_optional()' that needs to be generalized to 
handle scientific and complex notation.  And for that I figured that wrapping 
'complex()' in a 'try' block was just as general and reliable as a complicated 
're' pattern.  At least that was my claim in issue 9334, and I haven't gotten 
feedback on that.

I'd suggest reading the 9334 discussion, and testing that patch.  That patch 
includes some tests for scientific and complex numbers.

That issue and patch also adds a 'args_default_to_positional' parameter. I 
wonder if the two changes should be put in separate patches.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22672>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to