Current thinking on required options

[Loris Bennett]

Roel Schroeven <roel at roelschroeven.net> writes:

> Avi Gross via Python-list schreef op 20/04/2021 om 1:56:
>> Sidestepping the wording of "options" is the very real fact that providing
>> names for even required parts can be helpful in many cases.
>
> Very true. It's very much like named arguments in Python function calls: they
> help to document precisely and explicitly what's happening, instead of having to
> rely on remembering the order of arguments/options.

Thanks to all for the discussion, which I did not think was silly - to
me "option" and "optional" are much more closely related than the two
meanings of "argument", which, while obviously sharing the same root,
have diverged significantly.  However, I am grateful for the cpio and
tar examples.

I'll probably stick with the "required options" and just tweak the
usage output of argparse to make it clear that some options are not
optional :-)

Cheers,

Loris