Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:28, Jesse Noller <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Brett Cannon <[email protected]> wrote:
Upfront people need to realize that we might have three argument
parsing libraries for a while, but it won't be forever. If we get
argparse accepted we would slowly deprecate at least optparse, if not
getopt (lat time I tried to ditch getopt for Python 3 some argued that
getopt supported stuff optparse didn't), out of the standard library
and toss them into PyPI for those who refuse to switch. The standard
library might not evolve a lot, but it isn't dead or in stone.
But before this can happen, people need to have a general consensus
that I should bug Steven about contributing as it will require a PEP
from him. Steven already has commit privileges to maintenance from him
will not be a problem.
So if you want this to actually happen and for me to start talking to
Steven just reply to this email w/ a vote.
I am +0
More fuel for the pep(fire):
http://blogg.ingspree.net/blog/2009/09/14/opster/
It's only more fuel in terms of acknowledging there is another
approach using decorators. But since no library that takes that
approach is near to being considered best-of-breed by the community or
is as stable as argparse I don't consider it that big of a deal.
Although adding a decorator based approach to argparse shouldn't be out
of the question. Then there really would be MTOWTDI...
Michael
-Brett
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
