This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author paul.j3
Recipients Albert White, Martin.d'Anjou, Oliver.Smith, benschmaus, bethard, docs@python, eric.araujo, eric.smith, martin.panter, mburger, paul.j3, r.david.murray, rhartkopf, rhettinger, shaharg, terry.reedy, tonygaetani, tshepang
Date 2016-03-24.03:03:25
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1458788606.77.0.792929990234.issue9694@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I can see changing the group title from 'optional arguments' to 'options' or 'optionals'

    parser._optionals.title
    'optional arguments'

But I don't think there's a need to change references in the code or its comments from 'optionals' to 'options'.  I like the parallelism between 'optionals' and 'positionals'.  The terms are well defined in the code.  During parsing, the 'required' attribute is only used at the end to check for missing arguments.

In Stackoverflow questions I'm tended to talk about 'flagged arguments'.

I still favor encouraging users to define their argument group(s), and making it easier to modify the titles of the two predefined groups.  I don't see enough of a consensus on alternative titles to make more sweeping changes.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-03-24 03:03:26paul.j3setrecipients: + paul.j3, rhettinger, terry.reedy, bethard, eric.smith, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, docs@python, benschmaus, tshepang, martin.panter, mburger, Martin.d'Anjou, Oliver.Smith, rhartkopf, Albert White, tonygaetani, shaharg
2016-03-24 03:03:26paul.j3setmessageid: <1458788606.77.0.792929990234.issue9694@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-03-24 03:03:26paul.j3linkissue9694 messages
2016-03-24 03:03:25paul.j3create