Georg Brandl ge...@python.org added the comment:
I'm not sure how much value this adds, given that you can just call set() on
the list resulting from append actions.
--
nosy: +georg.brandl
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment:
I think it's overkill, especially given the easy alternatives.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7636
___
Changes by R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com:
--
priority: - low
resolution: - rejected
stage: - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7636
steven Michalske smichal...@gmail.com added the comment:
Agreed, add is the correct word, I used update because i created a set from
the list that optarg created with append.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment:
After looking into it, I'm thinking this may be better off as a custom option
inherited from optparse.Option. I already wrote the patch since it was small
and a way to poke around optparse some more, so we'll see if anyone else likes
the idea.
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment:
custom_add.py gives an example of how you could complete this on your own
without a change to optparse. Running custom_add.py -a foo -a bar -a foo
should print out set(['foo', 'bar']) - ultimately the same thing.
--
Added file:
New submission from steven Michalske smichal...@gmail.com:
As a complement to the append action, an update action would update a set with
new values.
update
update a set with this option’s argument
justification:
adding email addresses at the command line, makes it less code to have a unique
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment:
The name should probably be add rather than update, sticking with the name
of the action being done on the underlying set (as update takes an iterable).
Agree/disagree?
I need to add tests and docs to the patch I wrote up - I'll put it up here
