[stdlib-sig] should we try to add argparse?

[Michael Foord]

Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:28, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> 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
> stdlib-sig at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
>   


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog