From guido@python.org Wed Nov 13 15:54:11 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:54:11 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik Message-ID: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> I want to start working on an alpha release of Python 2.3. I'd like to be able to release 2.3a1 before Xmas. PEP 283 has a list of things to be done. One of the tasks is to adopt Greg Ward's options parsing module, Optik. I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any comments? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From guido@python.org Wed Nov 13 16:40:27 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:40:27 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:30:25 +0100." References: Message-ID: <200211131640.gADGeRT29280@odiug.zope.com> > > I want to start working on an alpha release of Python 2.3. I'd like > > to be able to release 2.3a1 before Xmas. PEP 283 has a list of things > > to be done. One of the tasks is to adopt Greg Ward's options parsing > > module, Optik. I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any > > comments? > > What about the discussion in May 2002: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-May/000191.html Looking at the code, I think there are too many classes to speak about a single dominant class; then the guideline becomes "use short, lower-case module names". Cute names are against Python's tradition IMO. > Since some projects (for exmaple docutils) already started to use > Optik it is becoming increasingly late for a name change. The docutils author can speak for himself; I think docutils can deal with the change. It's also simple enough to add something like this: try: from options import OptionParse except ImportError: from optik import OptionParse --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From pf@artcom-gmbh.de Wed Nov 13 17:24:14 2002 From: pf@artcom-gmbh.de (Peter Funk) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:24:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131640.gADGeRT29280@odiug.zope.com> from Guido van Rossum at "Nov 13, 2002 11:40:27 am" Message-ID: Hi, Guido van Rossum: [...] > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-May/000191.html > > Looking at the code, I think there are too many classes to speak about > a single dominant class; [...] I beg to differ. In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-May/000204.html Greg wrote: '''I strongly prefer OptionParser, because that's the main class; it's the one that's always used (ie. directly instantiated). There are always instances of Option, OptionValues, and the various exception classes floating around -- but most Optik applications don't have to import those names directly.''' Regards, Peter -- Peter Funk, Oldenburger Str.86, D-27777 Ganderkesee, Germany office: +49 421 20419-0 (ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Str.8, D-28359 Bremen, Germany) From guido@python.org Wed Nov 13 17:34:13 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:34:13 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:24:14 +0100." References: Message-ID: <200211131734.gADHYDI04190@odiug.zope.com> [PF] > I beg to differ. In > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-May/000204.html > Greg wrote: > '''I strongly prefer OptionParser, because that's the main class; it's the > one that's always used (ie. directly instantiated). There are always > instances of Option, OptionValues, and the various exception classes > floating around -- but most Optik applications don't have to import > those names directly.''' Too bad. Greg also said he preferred short lowercase module names. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From hpk@devel.trillke.net Wed Nov 13 17:45:53 2002 From: hpk@devel.trillke.net (holger krekel) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:45:53 +0100 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131734.gADHYDI04190@odiug.zope.com>; from guido@python.org on Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:34:13PM -0500 References: <200211131734.gADHYDI04190@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: <20021113184553.F14762@prim.han.de> [Guido van Rossum Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:34:13PM -0500] > [PF] > > I beg to differ. In > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-May/000204.html > > Greg wrote: > > '''I strongly prefer OptionParser, because that's the main class; it's the > > one that's always used (ie. directly instantiated). There are always > > instances of Option, OptionValues, and the various exception classes > > floating around -- but most Optik applications don't have to import > > those names directly.''' > > Too bad. Greg also said he preferred short lowercase module names. But 'options' is not as descriptive as 'OptionParser'. To me it compares to 'urlparse'. We don't say 'import url'. regards, holger From drifty@bigfoot.com Wed Nov 13 21:29:24 2002 From: drifty@bigfoot.com (Brett Cannon) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:29:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: [Guido van Rossum] > I want to start working on an alpha release of Python 2.3. I'd like > to be able to release 2.3a1 before Xmas. PEP 283 has a list of things > to be done. One of the tasks is to adopt Greg Ward's options parsing > module, Optik. I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any > comments? > +0 The name is basically fine, if just a little vague. But then again I really doubt someone learning programming knows what getopt traditionally means. But I don't have a better name, so I can't really complain. Best I can do is ArgParser or something to try to tie the name into sys.argv. And I completely support making sure that it doesn't have a cute name. -Brett From ping@zesty.ca Wed Nov 13 21:33:03 2002 From: ping@zesty.ca (Ka-Ping Yee) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:33:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131640.gADGeRT29280@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > the guideline becomes "use short, > lower-case module names". A short lower-case name would be good, but i worry that "options" is too generic a word. There are all sorts of options it might mean. Could we find a name that has something to do with commands or the command line, like "cmdline" or "cmdopts"? -- ?!ng From guido@python.org Wed Nov 13 21:36:24 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:36:24 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:33:03 CST." References: Message-ID: <200211132136.gADLaOd07157@odiug.zope.com> > > the guideline becomes "use short, > > lower-case module names". > > A short lower-case name would be good, but i worry that "options" is > too generic a word. There are all sorts of options it might mean. > Could we find a name that has something to do with commands or the > command line, like "cmdline" or "cmdopts"? This has been mentioned before and I'm sort of in agreement, especially since I've heard from several people already who have their own module options.py. How about optlib? It's short, un-cute, and follows the *lib pattern used all over the Python stdlib. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From dave@boost-consulting.com Wed Nov 13 21:59:14 2002 From: dave@boost-consulting.com (David Abrahams) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:59:14 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: (Ka-Ping Yee's message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:33:03 -0600 (CST)") References: Message-ID: Ka-Ping Yee writes: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> the guideline becomes "use short, >> lower-case module names". > > A short lower-case name would be good, but i worry that "options" is > too generic a word. There are all sorts of options it might mean. > Could we find a name that has something to do with commands or the > command line, like "cmdline" or "cmdopts"? +1 Both of those go "thunk" for me. -- David Abrahams dave@boost-consulting.com * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution From gward@python.net Wed Nov 13 23:37:29 2002 From: gward@python.net (Greg Ward) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:37:29 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> References: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: <20021113233729.GA3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> On 13 November 2002, Guido van Rossum said: > I want to start working on an alpha release of Python 2.3. I'd like > to be able to release 2.3a1 before Xmas. PEP 283 has a list of things > to be done. One of the tasks is to adopt Greg Ward's options parsing > module, Optik. I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any > comments? I have yet to be thrilled by any of the proposed names, and I'm not thrilled by this one. It's possible that I dislike it slightly less than OptionParser, which has been my working title for ages now. BTW, several weeks ago I wrote a script to do much of the grunt work. If you have the Optik CVS tree checked out, this: ./merge optik.py will merge the relevant code from lib/*.py into optik.py. Change the output name to suit your taste, of course. Still haven't done anything about the test suite, which is probably the main reason I've been procrastinating on this. (Oh yeah, the docs too.) Greg -- Greg Ward http://www.gerg.ca/ Are we THERE yet? From gward@python.net Wed Nov 13 23:39:47 2002 From: gward@python.net (Greg Ward) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:39:47 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211132136.gADLaOd07157@odiug.zope.com> References: <200211132136.gADLaOd07157@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: <20021113233947.GB3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> On 13 November 2002, Guido van Rossum said: > How about optlib? It's short, un-cute, and follows the *lib pattern > used all over the Python stdlib. Oooh, I think I like it! Definitely more than I like cmdline.py or cmdopts.py or anything like that. (I dislike abbreviated words in module names almost as much as Guido dislikes underscores.) Greg -- Greg Ward http://www.gerg.ca/ And I wonder ... will Elvis take the place of Jesus in a thousand years? -- Dead Kennedys From jeremy@alum.mit.edu Wed Nov 13 23:39:46 2002 From: jeremy@alum.mit.edu (Jeremy Hylton) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:39:46 -0500 Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <20021113233729.GA3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> References: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> <20021113233729.GA3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> Message-ID: <15826.58050.522774.15983@slothrop.zope.com> >>>>> "GW" == Greg Ward writes: GW> Still haven't done anything about the test suite, which is GW> probably the main reason I've been procrastinating on this. (Oh GW> yeah, the docs too.) They can probably wait until the distutils docs are done. Jeremy From gward@python.net Wed Nov 13 23:44:19 2002 From: gward@python.net (Greg Ward) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:44:19 -0500 Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <15826.58050.522774.15983@slothrop.zope.com> References: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> <20021113233729.GA3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> <15826.58050.522774.15983@slothrop.zope.com> Message-ID: <20021113234419.GC3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> On 13 November 2002, Jeremy Hylton said: > GW> Still haven't done anything about the test suite, which is > GW> probably the main reason I've been procrastinating on this. (Oh > GW> yeah, the docs too.) > > They can probably wait until the distutils docs are done. Ouch! That was low. ;-) BTW, Optik *is* copiously documented -- it's just a question of LaTeX-ifying the docs. Greg -- Greg Ward http://www.gerg.ca/ I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK / I sleep all night and I work all day From dave@boost-consulting.com Wed Nov 13 23:43:50 2002 From: dave@boost-consulting.com (David Abrahams) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:43:50 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <20021113233947.GB3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> (Greg Ward's message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:39:47 -0500") References: <200211132136.gADLaOd07157@odiug.zope.com> <20021113233947.GB3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> Message-ID: Greg Ward writes: > On 13 November 2002, Guido van Rossum said: >> How about optlib? It's short, un-cute, and follows the *lib pattern >> used all over the Python stdlib. > > Oooh, I think I like it! Definitely more than I like cmdline.py or > cmdopts.py or anything like that. > > (I dislike abbreviated words in module names almost as much as Guido > dislikes underscores.) I agree with that sentiment, but find it hard to understand why you'd prefer 'opt' as an abbreviation over the other abbreviations suggested, which are much less-confusable. -- David Abrahams dave@boost-consulting.com * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution From goodger@python.org Thu Nov 14 01:58:50 2002 From: goodger@python.org (David Goodger) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:58:50 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131640.gADGeRT29280@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: Guido van Rossum wrote: > I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any comments? "optlib" is better. I have no problem with "OptionParser" either; it *is* longer, but matches the "ConfigParser" pattern. >> Since some projects (for exmaple docutils) already started to use >> Optik it is becoming increasingly late for a name change. > > The docutils author can speak for himself; I think docutils can deal > with the change. Docutils has no problem with the name change. We've known for months that it was imminent. Projects that use Optik either ship with it included or require it to be installed separately. I believe Greg Ward plans to maintain an independent distribution, using the old name, for the benefit of such projects and for users of Python 2.0 through 2.2. -- David Goodger Open-source projects: - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/ (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html) - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/ From guido@python.org Thu Nov 14 04:07:12 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:07:12 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:58:50 EST." References: Message-ID: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> > Projects that use Optik either ship with it included or require it to > be installed separately. I believe Greg Ward plans to maintain an > independent distribution, using the old name, for the benefit of such > projects and for users of Python 2.0 through 2.2. Of course, it would be easier for prospective users if Greg's distribution used the same name as we adopt for 2.3. :-) Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From dave@boost-consulting.com Thu Nov 14 04:02:10 2002 From: dave@boost-consulting.com (David Abrahams) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:02:10 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> (Guido van Rossum's message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:07:12 -0500") References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: Guido van Rossum writes: > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? +1 on argvparse -1 on optlib (sounds like optimization) -- David Abrahams dave@boost-consulting.com * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution From aahz@pythoncraft.com Thu Nov 14 05:38:12 2002 From: aahz@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:38:12 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20021114053812.GA8827@panix.com> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? If those are the options: +1 argvparse -0 optlib If it were optionlib, I'd change to +0 or +1. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ A: No. Q: Is top-posting okay? From ping@zesty.ca Thu Nov 14 05:38:16 2002 From: ping@zesty.ca (Ka-Ping Yee) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:38:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? I find "argvparse" more meaningful. (Although "optlib" is slightly less generic than "options", the "lib" suffix doesn't really mean anything to me. Side question: does the presence or absence of "-lib" have any conventional mening?) -- ?!ng From goodger@python.org Thu Nov 14 05:46:09 2002 From: goodger@python.org (David Goodger) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:46:09 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: Guido van Rossum wrote: > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? optlib > argvparse To me, "argvparse" is a bit misleading. Docutils is not only using Optik for command-line option parsing, but also for all runtime settings handling, even when executed programmatically (i.e., no command-line options to parse). I originally named the optik.Values object "options", but recently changed it to "settings" to better reflect its true nature. Optik also interfaces well with config files via ConfigParser. Using Optik with ConfigParser and the runtime settings specs from each of Docutils' components feels just like applying a design pattern: it works, it clicks, it feels *right*. Not sure if it's an existing pattern or a new one though. -- David Goodger Open-source projects: - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/ (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html) - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/ From barry@python.org Thu Nov 14 05:55:09 2002 From: barry@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:55:09 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <15827.15037.983947.72530@gargle.gargle.HOWL> >>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum writes: GvR> Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and GvR> argvparse equally well. Can we do a tally of votes for GvR> those, to decide? +1 argvparse +0 optlib -Barry From DavidA@ActiveState.com Thu Nov 14 06:18:57 2002 From: DavidA@ActiveState.com (David Ascher) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:18:57 -0800 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <3DD34051.2070909@ActiveState.com> David Abrahams wrote: >-1 on optlib (sounds like optimization) > Agreed, especially with the parenthetical comment. I don't like argvparse much because this "argv" thing is far from obvious to newbies. But given those two choices, I'd pick argvparse over optlib. From guido@python.org Thu Nov 14 13:15:38 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:15:38 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:22:03 GMT." <16E1010E4581B049ABC51D4975CEDB885E2DC4@UKDCX001.uk.int.atosorigin.com> References: <16E1010E4581B049ABC51D4975CEDB885E2DC4@UKDCX001.uk.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: <200211141315.gAEDFch29632@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> In the choice between optlib and argvparse, argvparse wins by a landslide. But I came up with a better one: optparse! This addresses the argument by several Davids that argv is obscure to newbies. I think it doesn't sound like optimization like optlib does. optparse also seems to be what Ruby uses (it even has an OptionParser class :-), and I found an optparse.tcl on the net too. I also note that the recommended rhythm looks better as from optparse import OptionParser than as from argvparse import OptionParser --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From pobrien@orbtech.com Thu Nov 14 14:21:04 2002 From: pobrien@orbtech.com (Patrick K. O'Brien) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:21:04 -0600 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <3DD34051.2070909@ActiveState.com> References: <3DD34051.2070909@ActiveState.com> Message-ID: <200211140821.04628.pobrien@orbtech.com> On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:18 am, David Ascher wrote: > I don't like argvparse much because this "argv" thing is far from > obvious to newbies. But given those two choices, I'd pick argvparse > over optlib. I agree that "argv" isn't obvious, but we're likely stuck with it. Given that, along with David Goodger's observation that Optik does more than parse, I thought I'd throw this name into the fray: argvlib If that doesn't sit well with anyone, I'm +1 on argvparse. -- Patrick K. O'Brien Orbtech http://www.orbtech.com/web/pobrien ----------------------------------------------- "Your source for Python programming expertise." ----------------------------------------------- From mclay@nist.gov Thu Nov 14 15:38:29 2002 From: mclay@nist.gov (Michael McLay) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:38:29 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <3DD34051.2070909@ActiveState.com> References: <3DD34051.2070909@ActiveState.com> Message-ID: <200211141038.29309.mclay@nist.gov> On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:18 am, David Ascher wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >-1 on optlib (sounds like optimization) > > Agreed, especially with the parenthetical comment. > > I don't like argvparse much because this "argv" thing is far from > obvious to newbies. But given those two choices, I'd pick argvparse > over optlib. I was just about to say the same thing about "argv". How about calling it cmdoptionslib or optionslib. For a newbie just using the word "options" makes it diffcult to locate references using google, etc. On google optionlib had three pages of hits, optionslib had two hits and cmdoptionslib had no hits. From pinard@iro.umontreal.ca Thu Nov 14 17:40:29 2002 From: pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (=?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard) Date: 14 Nov 2002 12:40:29 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> References: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: [Guido van Rossum] > [...] One of the tasks is to adopt Greg Ward's options parsing module, > Optik. I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any comments? My feeling is that Python should much avoid, for a library module, a name which is likely to be a user variable name. This would rule out "options". In my experience so far, the most irritating cases in Python hurding common words for itself have been `string' and `socket'. I know that some people write `s' for a string and would write `o' for options, but this algebraic style is not ideal. I find that using real words, like `counter', `ordinal', `cursor', `index' or such, yields more readable programs. When one "imports" a module, one has to give up using the module name for other purposes. Currently, I think _all_ my callable scripts which handle options already use `options' for a variable name, so I would prefer that `options' be left alone. This is why I think Python should not offer a module named "text" for example. As a principle for the future, let simple, common words be available to users for naming their own variables. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard From pinard@iro.umontreal.ca Thu Nov 14 17:55:19 2002 From: pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (=?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard) Date: 14 Nov 2002 12:55:19 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> References: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: [Guido van Rossum] > [...] One of the tasks is to adopt Greg Ward's options parsing module, > Optik. I propose to adopt this under the name "options". Any comments? For what it might be worth, from all suggestions I've seen so far, "OptionParser" is the one I like best, because of the pre-existence of "ConfigParser", and the similarity between goals and complexity level. I understand that OptionParser is _also_ a class among others in those offered, and some of us do not see a reason to _give preference_ to one particular class. I would rather the module name also being one of its class name as a mere coincidence or accident, rather than the indication that some preference was given. The objection against it is not strong. In a previous message, I told why "options" looks a bad choice to me. The next worse is probably "optlib", because its ambiguity makes it pretty meaningless. Maybe that "Optik" could be retained as yet another possibility? It might not be so bad, all considered. ;-) -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard From aahz@pythoncraft.com Thu Nov 14 19:03:39 2002 From: aahz@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:03:39 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211141315.gAEDFch29632@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> References: <16E1010E4581B049ABC51D4975CEDB885E2DC4@UKDCX001.uk.int.atosorigin.com> <200211141315.gAEDFch29632@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20021114190339.GA7387@panix.com> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > In the choice between optlib and argvparse, argvparse wins by a > landslide. But I came up with a better one: optparse! This addresses > the argument by several Davids that argv is obscure to newbies. I > think it doesn't sound like optimization like optlib does. > > optparse also seems to be what Ruby uses (it even has an OptionParser > class :-), and I found an optparse.tcl on the net too. +1 -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ A: No. Q: Is top-posting okay? From mgilfix@eecs.tufts.edu Thu Nov 14 20:00:36 2002 From: mgilfix@eecs.tufts.edu (Michael Gilfix) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:00:36 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20021114200036.GB199@eecs.tufts.edu> On Wed, Nov 13 @ 23:07, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Of course, it would be easier for prospective users if Greg's > distribution used the same name as we adopt for 2.3. :-) > > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? +1 optlib -1 argvparse (ugh) -- Michael Gilfix mgilfix@eecs.tufts.edu For my gpg public key: http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~mgilfix/contact.html From mgilfix@eecs.tufts.edu Thu Nov 14 20:08:15 2002 From: mgilfix@eecs.tufts.edu (Michael Gilfix) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:08:15 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211141038.29309.mclay@nist.gov> References: <3DD34051.2070909@ActiveState.com> <200211141038.29309.mclay@nist.gov> Message-ID: <20021114200814.GC199@eecs.tufts.edu> After reading this thread, it seems kind of shame we can't do something like: from parselib import OptionParser which could match with UrlParser and ConfigParser. But, that being said, I like either Guido's "optparse" or the OptionParser name in the end. -- Mike On Thu, Nov 14 @ 10:38, Michael McLay wrote: > On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:18 am, David Ascher wrote: > > David Abrahams wrote: > > >-1 on optlib (sounds like optimization) > > > > Agreed, especially with the parenthetical comment. > > > > I don't like argvparse much because this "argv" thing is far from > > obvious to newbies. But given those two choices, I'd pick argvparse > > over optlib. > > I was just about to say the same thing about "argv". > > How about calling it cmdoptionslib or optionslib. > > For a newbie just using the word "options" makes it diffcult to locate > references using google, etc. On google optionlib had three pages of hits, > optionslib had two hits and cmdoptionslib had no hits. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev -- Michael Gilfix mgilfix@eecs.tufts.edu For my gpg public key: http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~mgilfix/contact.html From guido@python.org Thu Nov 14 20:54:46 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:54:46 -0500 Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:37:29 EST." <20021113233729.GA3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> References: <200211131554.gADFsBw28797@odiug.zope.com> <20021113233729.GA3218@cthulhu.gerg.ca> Message-ID: <200211142054.gAEKskw12698@odiug.zope.com> Let's assume we'll stick with optparse as the module name. There are still a few references to Optik in the source code, in particular there's an exception class OptikError. (The other mentions are in comments.) Should I rename OptikError to OptParseError, or leave it? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From ping@zesty.ca Thu Nov 14 21:02:17 2002 From: ping@zesty.ca (Ka-Ping Yee) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:02:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211142054.gAEKskw12698@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Should I rename OptikError to OptParseError, or leave it? I like optparse, and i think it's a good idea to call the corresponding error OptParseError. -- ?!ng From DavidA@ActiveState.com Thu Nov 14 21:22:46 2002 From: DavidA@ActiveState.com (David Ascher) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:22:46 -0800 Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: [getopt-sig] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DD41426.7070806@ActiveState.com> Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > >Should I rename OptikError to OptParseError, or leave it? > > > I like optparse, and i think it's a good idea to call the corresponding > error OptParseError. Agreed. Now's the time to get rid of the legacy code. From Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com Thu Nov 14 21:38:54 2002 From: Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com (Jack Jansen) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:38:54 +0100 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211132136.gADLaOd07157@odiug.zope.com> Message-ID: <78E5B125-F819-11D6-B877-000A27B19B96@oratrix.com> On woensdag, nov 13, 2002, at 22:36 Europe/Amsterdam, Guido van Rossum wrote: > How about optlib? It's short, un-cute, and follows the *lib pattern > used all over the Python stdlib. optlib may be a bit better than options, but it could still do many different things in my mind. Maybe argvlib (which is most definitely un-cute:-)? -- - Jack Jansen http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman - From gward@python.net Thu Nov 14 21:40:00 2002 From: gward@python.net (Greg Ward) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:40:00 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20021114214000.GB4989@cthulhu.gerg.ca> On 13 November 2002, Guido van Rossum said: > Of course, it would be easier for prospective users if Greg's > distribution used the same name as we adopt for 2.3. :-) Yes -- what I'm planning is the first major Optik release after it's incorporated into Python's stdlib (Optik 1.5?) will include a stub module -- optlib.py, optparse.py, OptionParser.py, whatever -- that emulates the module of the same name from Python 2.3. Or something like that. So developers can say "requires Python 2.3 or Optik 1.5" and just code this: from optparse import OptionParser with no silly "try/except ImportError" hacks. Greg -- Greg Ward http://www.gerg.ca/ It takes a scary kind of illness / To design a place like this for pay Downtown's an endless generic mall / Of video games and fast food chains -- Dead Kennedys From gward@python.net Thu Nov 14 21:42:04 2002 From: gward@python.net (Greg Ward) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:42:04 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: <20021114214204.GC4989@cthulhu.gerg.ca> On 13 November 2002, Guido van Rossum said: > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? 'argvparse' turns my stomach. 'optlib' I like. 'optparse' I like even more. I guess I am being hypocritical wrt. abbreviations in identifier names. Oh well. Greg -- Greg Ward http://www.gerg.ca/ MTV -- get off the air! -- Dead Kennedys From DavidA@ActiveState.com Thu Nov 14 21:47:17 2002 From: DavidA@ActiveState.com (David Ascher) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:47:17 -0800 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> <20021114214204.GC4989@cthulhu.gerg.ca> Message-ID: <3DD419E5.3060805@ActiveState.com> Greg Ward wrote: > 'optparse' I like even more. > I have no problem w/ optparse. From drifty@bigfoot.com Thu Nov 14 21:52:15 2002 From: drifty@bigfoot.com (Brett Cannon) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:52:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: [Guido van Rossum] > Of all the names suggested so far, I like optlib and argvparse equally > well. Can we do a tally of votes for those, to decide? > +1 argvparse -0 optlib And to just continue with what I had done before, here is the current tally for votes for the two options (based on direct replies to Guido's email calling for this vote except for Raymond's):: argvparse: +1 : (David Abrahams, Brett Cannon, Barry Warsaw, Patrick O'Brien) +0 : () -0 : () -1 : (Michael Gilfix) optlib: +1 : (Michael Gilfix, Raymond Hettinger) +0 : (Barry Warsaw) -0 : (Brett Cannon) -1 : (David Abrahams, David Ascher) Vague votes: Ka-Ping Yee (likes argvparse) David Goodger ("optlib > argvparse") David Ascher ("I'd pick argvparse over optlib") Greg Ward ("argvparse turns my stomach; optlib I like") Notes: David Abrahams would change his vote for ``optlib`` if the name was ``optionslib``. Michael Lay likes this name, too. Patrick O'Brien's vote is only if argvlib doesn't go anywhere. OptionParser, optparse, and argvlib were the wild card names mentioned the most. People also warmed to ``optionslib`` more than ``optlib`` and seemed willing to change there vote if ``optlib`` metamorphosed. -Brett P.S.: Guido, if you call another vote with different names for some reason, can you change the subject line of the email so that Mailman makes all the votes a single thread? Makes it easier for me to count (assuming you want me to keep bothering to count). From Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com Thu Nov 14 21:59:24 2002 From: Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com (Jack Jansen) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:59:24 +0100 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <78E5B125-F819-11D6-B877-000A27B19B96@oratrix.com> Message-ID: <566D7E3C-F81C-11D6-B877-000A27B19B96@oratrix.com> On donderdag, nov 14, 2002, at 22:38 Europe/Amsterdam, Jack Jansen wrote: > optlib may be a bit better than options, but it could still do many > different things in my mind. Maybe argvlib (which is most definitely > un-cute:-)? Sorry, ignore this message. I wrote it yesterday but it somehow didnt get out of my machine until just yet. I'm all for argvparse at the moment. Incidentally, I think that the fact that argv is unclear to newbees is too bad, as they'll have to learn about sys.argv anyway... -- - Jack Jansen http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman - From guido@python.org Thu Nov 14 22:01:44 2002 From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:01:44 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:52:15 PST." References: Message-ID: <200211142201.gAEM1i713141@odiug.zope.com> > P.S.: Guido, if you call another vote with different names for some > reason, can you change the subject line of the email so that Mailman > makes all the votes a single thread? Makes it easier for me to > count (assuming you want me to keep bothering to count). No, thanks! optparse wins hands down in the latest exit poll. I've checked it in (docs and unit tests still missing though). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From dave@boost-consulting.com Thu Nov 14 22:39:05 2002 From: dave@boost-consulting.com (David Abrahams) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:39:05 -0500 Subject: [getopt-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Adopting Optik In-Reply-To: <3DD419E5.3060805@ActiveState.com> (David Ascher's message of "Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:47:17 -0800") References: <200211140407.gAE47CU21510@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> <20021114214204.GC4989@cthulhu.gerg.ca> <3DD419E5.3060805@ActiveState.com> Message-ID: David Ascher writes: > Greg Ward wrote: > >> 'optparse' I like even more. >> > I have no problem w/ optparse. Me neither. Optimal parsing? I doubt many will read it that way ;-) -- David Abrahams dave@boost-consulting.com * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution