classification
Title: argparse required arguments displayed under "optional arguments"
Type: enhancement Stage: patch review
Components: Versions: Python 3.6
process
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: docs@python Nosy List: Albert White, Jacktose, Martin.d'Anjou, Oliver.Smith, benschmaus, bethard, docs@python, eric.araujo, eric.smith, maggyero, markgrandi, martin.panter, mburger, paul.j3, r.david.murray, rhartkopf, rhettinger, shaharg, terry.reedy, tonygaetani, tshepang
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2010-08-26 18:19 by benschmaus, last changed 2019-12-03 11:15 by maggyero.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
argparse-help-says-required-args-are-optional.py benschmaus, 2010-08-26 18:19
alt_grouping.py paul.j3, 2014-02-13 08:34
helpgroups.diff paul.j3, 2014-02-14 07:32 review
alt_grouping2.py paul.j3, 2014-02-14 07:33 Script demonstrating helpgroups.diff patch
parrot.py Oliver.Smith, 2014-09-02 20:25 Script to test alternate wording
argparse_option.patch rhartkopf, 2014-11-14 21:51
option-internal.patch martin.panter, 2014-12-16 06:27 review
option-internal.patch martin.panter, 2014-12-19 05:24 review
argparse_option.v2.patch martin.panter, 2016-04-05 07:26 review
Messages (40)
msg115017 - (view) Author: Ben Schmaus (benschmaus) Date: 2010-08-26 18:19
The argparse module lists required args as optional in the default help message.

If you run the following program (also attached) you'll get the output listed below.

#!/usr/bin/env python

import argparse

parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(
    description = 'Do something'
)
parser.add_argument('--reqarg', '-r', help = 'This is required', required = True)
parser.add_argument('--optarg','-o', help = "This is optional", required = False)
args = parser.parse_args()

$ python argparse-help-says-required-args-are-optional.py -h
usage: argparse-help-says-required-args-are-optional.py [-h] --reqarg REQARG
                                                        [--optarg OPTARG]

Do something

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --reqarg REQARG, -r REQARG
                        This is required
  --optarg OPTARG, -o OPTARG
                        This is optional
$
msg115019 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-26 18:32
It looks to me like reqarg is marked as required, since it's not in brackets. Or am I missing something?
msg115021 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-26 18:44
Yeah, the fact that it is listed under the heading "optional arguments:" :)  Guess we need a new section?
msg115023 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-26 19:04
Duh. Sorry about that.

Also applies to 3.2.
msg115032 - (view) Author: Steven Bethard (bethard) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-26 21:54
Yeah, I guess the optional vs. positional isn't the best terminology now that you can have required flag-based arguments. Did you have a word other than "optional" that you'd prefer?
msg115037 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-26 22:35
Perhaps you could just label them 'options:'?  After all, even if you have several options you may be required to pick at least one :)
msg115038 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-26 22:41
Or "parameters:"?
msg115045 - (view) Author: Ben Schmaus (benschmaus) Date: 2010-08-26 23:25
FWIW, I like the idea of just using the label "options".
msg115048 - (view) Author: Eric V. Smith (eric.smith) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-27 00:14
If you add a positional parameter by adding:
parser.add_argument('foo')
then the output becomes:

$ python argparse-help-says-required-args-are-optional.py -h
usage: issue9649.py [-h] --reqarg REQARG [--optarg OPTARG] foo

Do something

positional arguments:
  foo

optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --reqarg REQARG, -r REQARG
                        This is required
  --optarg OPTARG, -o OPTARG
                        This is optional

$

So whatever replaces "optional arguments:" needs to read well with "positional arguments:". Maybe just plain "options:" is good enough, but I think a word to replace "optional" (leaving "arguments:") would be better. I just don't have any useful suggestion :)
msg115058 - (view) Author: Steven Bethard (bethard) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-27 08:48
I guess one possibility might be "flag arguments". It's not great, but I guess it's more accurate.
msg115059 - (view) Author: Steven Bethard (bethard) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-27 08:57
And I guess the bigger issue to think about is how to add this in a backwards compatible way. I guess we could just add methods like "set_positionals_group_name(name)" and then fiddle with "self._positionals.title" in there. Not sure that's a great solution though - it seems like adding one method to change just this single attribute is overkill and not very general.

In the meantime, here's a workaround:

>>> parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(prog='PROG')
>>> parser.add_argument('--foo', required=True)
>>> parser._optionals.title = "flag arguments"
>>> parser.print_help()
usage: PROG [-h] --foo FOO

flag arguments:
  -h, --help  show this help message and exit
  --foo FOO

I can't promise this will continue to work, since it uses the undocumented _optionals attribute, but at least it's a way of getting something like what you want now.
msg115069 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-27 12:47
Well, there's also issue 9652, which speaks to having a more general facility, I suppose.  Maybe an exposed dictionary attribute containing the constant strings?
msg115109 - (view) Author: Terry J. Reedy (terry.reedy) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-27 18:15
Is this really a behavior bug or doc bug?
Or a feature request for better message customization?
msg115117 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-27 19:14
*This* bug is a behavior bug (required flags are mis-labelled as being optional in the help text).  The referenced bug is a feature request, but it may make sense to consider it while fixing this one.
msg115148 - (view) Author: Steven Bethard (bethard) * (Python committer) Date: 2010-08-28 07:03
I think this is still really a feature request. We can't just change the text from "optional" - that would silently change a large number of help messages without any warning. So to fix this "bug", we're going to have to add an API to explicitly set the group names - which can only be done as a new feature. People using 2.7 will have to use the workaround using parser._optionals I posted here.
msg132327 - (view) Author: Steven Bethard (bethard) * (Python committer) Date: 2011-03-27 14:20
So it strikes me that there already exists an officially supported way to rename your option groups. Just only create your own option groups (never use the default ones) and only put arguments there, e.g.:

------------------------- temp.py --------------------------
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description = 'Do something', add_help=False)
flags = parser.add_argument_group('flag arguments')
flags.add_argument('-h', '--help', action='help')
flags.add_argument('--reqarg', '-r', help='This is required', required=True)
flags.add_argument('--optarg','-o', help="This is optional", required=False)
args = parser.parse_args()
------------------------------------------------------------
$ python temp.py --help
usage: temp.py [-h] --reqarg REQARG [--optarg OPTARG]

Do something

flag arguments:
  -h, --help
  --reqarg REQARG, -r REQARG
                        This is required
  --optarg OPTARG, -o OPTARG
                        This is optional
------------------------------------------------------------

The documentation for action='help' needs to be added, as pointed out in Issue# 10772.

So basically, the API for customizing group names is already there. So I'm changing this to a documentation request - there should be an example in the docs showing how to change the default group names as above.
msg166183 - (view) Author: Steven Bethard (bethard) * (Python committer) Date: 2012-07-22 23:40
I'm changing the title because I keep seeing duplicates.

Documentation patches still welcome!
msg208659 - (view) Author: Martin d'Anjou (Martin.d'Anjou) Date: 2014-01-21 15:59
How about calling required arguments "required arguments"?

required arguments:
  --reqarg REQARG, -r REQARG
                        This is required
optional arguments:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --optarg OPTARG, -o OPTARG
                        This is optional

Clear and unambiguous. With this approach the user does not have to bloat the help to state "This is required".

We're having the same discussion over at github regarding argparse4j:
https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/argparse4j/issues/26#issuecomment-32894297
msg210808 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2014-02-10 08:21
A new “required arguments” section seems too arbitrary to me. It would clash with the “positional arguments” heading, since those are also required by default.

I would go with the heading “options”, as a noun. That term seems to be well used, at least on Linux and Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command-line_option). Other terms are “flag” and “switch”. In this thread I see two arguments against this:

1. Eric Smith prefers to retain the noun “arguments”. How about something like “non-positional arguments” then?

2. Steven Bethard is worried about backwards compatibility. I thought the Python people were happy to make these sort of changes each minor release (e.g. 3.4 to 3.5).

The module’s source code uses the term “optionals” a lot more than this one heading. It would be clearer if this term were dropped, or only used for things that are truly optional. So even if you can’t fix the help output until Python 4, please fix the documentation and the rest of the source code :)
msg211121 - (view) Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * (Python committer) Date: 2014-02-13 01:32
> How about calling required arguments "required arguments"?
> ...
> Clear and unambiguous. With this approach the user does 
> not have to bloat the help to state "This is required".

+1 This is straight-forward, logical, and easy-to-read.
msg211125 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2014-02-13 03:22
As Steven pointed out, the existing `add_argument_group` mechanism can be used to group required arguments.  For example

    ------------------------- temp.py --------------------------
    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description = 'Do something')
    group1 = parser.add_argument_group('required arguments')
    group1.add_argument('--reqarg', '-r', required=True)
    parser.add_argument('--optarg','-o')
    parser.add_argument('foo')
    parser.print_help()
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    usage: ipython [-h] --reqarg REQARG [--optarg OPTARG] foo
    Do something
    positional arguments:
      foo
    optional arguments:
      -h, --help            show this help message and exit
      --optarg OPTARG, -o OPTARG
    required arguments:
      --reqarg REQARG, -r REQARG

Positional 'foo' can also be put in the 'required' group:
    
    group1.add_argument('foo')

    required arguments:
      --reqarg REQARG, -r REQARG
      foo

The distinction between 'positionals' and 'optionals' (or flagged) is essential to the parsing, but it is not necessary for Help Formatting.

I can imagine grouping arguments by 'required/not-required' properties.  It might be worth constructing an alternative HelpFormatter class that regroups the arguments in this way.  Subclassing the HelpFormatter is the established way of adding features to the help display.

The existing HelpFormatter flags 'required' arguments in the usage line with '[]'.  There it is has the added task of flagging Mutually Exclusive Groups in the same way.

It's worth keeping in mind that whether an argument is 'required' or not is determined in 2 different ways.  There is an optional 'required' flag (default False).  But this flag is not allowed for 'positionals'.  Instead with those 'argparse' looks at 'nargs' ('?*' are not required).

The 'required' attribute of an argument (Action) is ignored during 'parse_args' until the end.  At that time it makes an inventory of 'required' arguments that have not been seen, and potentially raises an error.  That testing was changed in a relatively recent patch, and produced an unintended change in whether 'subparsers' were required or not. (I could look up those issues in needed).

I'll think about creating the alternative HelpFormatter.
msg211132 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2014-02-13 08:34
The attached file shows how the default argument groups could be redefined, using 'required' as the criteria.

I've implemented it as a method that is added to a subclass of ArgumentParser.  This method is invoked after arguments are defined, prior to generating the help.

The help looks something like this:

    usage: alt_grouping.py [-h] [-f FOO] -g GOO pos [baz]

    required:
      pos                required positional
      -g GOO, --goo GOO  required optional

    optional:
      -h, --help         show this help message and exit
      -f FOO, --foo FOO  optional
      baz                optional positional

I was thinking of implementing this as a formatter subclass, but given the way the help is assembled, invoking this method from the parser is simpler.
msg211205 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2014-02-14 07:32
Here's another possible solution: add a `help_groups` parameter to ArgumentParser.  It is a list of base argument group names.  `parser.add_argument(...)' places the action in one of those groups.

This is a generalization of the current code which creates two groups titled 'positional arguments' and 'optional arguments', and assigns actions based on 'optional strings' (e.g. '-f','--foo').

'help_groups' could have 1, 2, or 3 items.  

1 - just one argument group

2 - the current postional/optional split, but with user chosen names

3 - a 'positional', 'required', and 'optional' split.  

A 4 way split that distinguishes splits positionals between those that allow 0 values and 1 or more, is possible, but probably not that useful.

The changes are in the ArgumentParser.__init__ and _add_action methods.

'subparsers' do not inherit this parameter.  I have not explored how it plays out with 'parents'. 'test_argparse.py' runs fine.
msg226279 - (view) Author: Oliver Smith (Oliver.Smith) Date: 2014-09-02 20:25
The term "optional arguments" is a poorly formed adjectival suffix of "option". What it's trying to say is "these are kwargs" rather than "these arguments are not compulsory".

I ran into this issue with 3.4 and was looking to file a simple change request:

In early DOS/Linux days we called these "switches". I suggest we simply change the default wording from "optional arguments" to "switches".
msg226286 - (view) Author: Terry J. Reedy (terry.reedy) * (Python committer) Date: 2014-09-02 22:11
To me, the mistake is contrasting 'positional' versus 'optional'.  The proper contrasts are 'positional' versus 'named' or 'keyword'  -- I believe these are mutually exclusive for command lines -- and 'required' versus 'optional.  The two axes (contrasts) are orthogonal. Where are optional positional parameters listed?  If, as I presume, they are listed as 'positional' and given that all keyword arguments are already listed in the so-called 'optional' section, I think we should regard 'optional' as a misspelling of 'keyword'.  That is a word already familiar to python programmers. The change should only be made in default for the same reason we do not correct minor errors in exception messages in bugfix releases.
msg226290 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2014-09-02 23:29
In unix parlance, they are arguments and options (or, sometimes, flags).  And then required or not required.  So, argparse follows unix precedent here, except that it calls them "optional arguments", because everything is added via add_argument.  Which is why I suggested changing the label to just 'options'.  But I could see using 'switches' instead, that's less ambiguous, and is the term used on Windows (albeit with a different standard syntax).  However, every unix man page uses the term 'options'.

I definitely think 'keywords' is not a good idea.  That's crossing the streams (python parlance versus shell parlance).  argparse is building a bridge to the shell world, and should use its terminology for the bits of shell stuff it is implementing...most especially in the default help display.

Note that, reading the issue history, the argparse maintainer is urging a doc change only (how to fix the help if you run into this issue), not a behavior change.
msg231189 - (view) Author: Ryan Hartkopf (rhartkopf) Date: 2014-11-14 21:51
Personally, 'options' is the first word that comes to mind other than 'arguments' (which is confusing for obvious reasons). But I think we can all agree that any of these candidates are less ambiguous than 'optional arguments'! It's been 4 years, let's put this one to bed!
msg232715 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2014-12-16 06:27
Here is much larger patch in the spirit of Ryan’s, that fixes the documentation, adjusts the tests, and some of the internal comments and variable names in the source code as well. However if some changes are too controversial, I am happy to simplify it to (say) Ryan’s patch plus the minimum test fixes.
msg232928 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2014-12-19 05:24
Updated my patch with a “version changed” notice
msg243290 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2015-05-16 00:30
Is there any interest in my or Ryan’s patches, which change the default heading away from “optional arguments”? Changing the default is my preferred fix, but if others don’t like it (e.g. compatibility concerns), I am happy to work on a documentation patch according to <https://bugs.python.org/issue9694#msg132327>.

I don’t see how adding an extra help groups API is very helpful though. The problem here is that the default help group headings are wrong (or at least misleading to many people).
msg262273 - (view) Author: Shahar Golan (shaharg) Date: 2016-03-23 14:51
This is not just a section issue. Please note that using the ArgumentDefaultHelpFormatter:

  argparse.ArgumentParser(formatter_class=argparse.ArgumentDefaultHelpFormatter)

The help will also show (default=None) for these required arguments.
msg262297 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2016-03-23 19:21
This ArgumentDefaultHelpFormatter issue should probably be raised in its own issue.  It applies to 'required' optionals, but any patch would be independent of the issues discussed here.

This class defines a method that adds the '%(default)' string to the help in certain situations.  It already skips required positionals.  So adding a test for 'action.required' should be easy.

    def _get_help_string(self, action):
        help = action.help
        if '%(default)' not in action.help:
            if action.default is not SUPPRESS:
                defaulting_nargs = [OPTIONAL, ZERO_OR_MORE]
                if action.option_strings or action.nargs in defaulting_nargs:
                    help += ' (default: %(default)s)'
        return help

There are 2 easy user fixes.

- a custom HelpFormatter class that implements this fix.  

- 'default=argparse.SUPPRESS' for arguments where you do not want to see the default.  This SUPPRESS is checked else where in the code, but for a required argument I don't think that matters (but it needs testing).
msg262315 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-03-24 00:31
Still applicable to Python 3 AFAIK
msg262323 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2016-03-24 03:03
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.
msg262553 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-03-28 04:54
I am willing to drop most of the code and comment changes if that moves us closer to consensus. Paul: would you accept changing the heading “optional arguments” to “options” in 3.6?

I thought we were close to consensus to use “options”, but maybe that is my own bias showing. Re-reading through this thread, here is a summary of the people that seem to prefer renaming the “optional arguments” heading:

Steven: “flag arguments”, but concerned about affecting existing help messages
David: options, switches
Eric: replace adjective “optional” but leave “. . . arguments”
Ben (OP): options
Martin Panter: options, flags, switches, or non-positional arguments
Oliver: switches
Terry: keyword arguments
Ryan: options, or other suggestions

Martin d'Anjou and Raymond seem to prefer splitting out a third group, “required arguments”, although it is not clear how that would tie in with the “positional arguments” group.

I think making it easier to modify the headings is worthwhile only if we deprecated the old heading in favour of using a new default name in the future. To me the problem is the default behaviour, not that argparse is inflexible.

Another option might be to fix Issue 10529 (explain using gettext with argparse), and then use that to translate the "optional arguments" string. But I don’t know how to do this.

Another thought is if we added a notice to Porting to Python 3.6 in What’s New, that might ease concerns about changing the heading.
msg262893 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-04-05 07:26
Posting argparse_option.v2.patch, which is minimally complete version of Ryan’s patch. I have dropped all the nonessential code and documentation tweaks. I also added a What’s New entry. I’d like to know if people think this is the right direction to move in.
msg327376 - (view) Author: Jack (Jacktose) Date: 2018-10-08 23:34
I'd like to note that this also happens with a required mutually exclusive group:

group = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group(required=True)

The arguments in the group are listed under “optional arguments:”.

I'm guessing the mechanism is the same.
msg345542 - (view) Author: Mark Grandi (markgrandi) * Date: 2019-06-14 01:38
Is there anything that can be done to help this issue move along? I just ran into it just now
msg345545 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2019-06-14 03:39
Mark,

Have you tried defining your own Argument Group?  If that didn't work, what fix do you want?  Why?
msg357750 - (view) Author: Géry (maggyero) * Date: 2019-12-03 11:15
I have just run into the same issue here: https://bugs.python.org/issue38950

- I prefer Terry J. Reedy's "keyword arguments" as it is clear and consistent with "positional arguments".
- But Steven Bethard 's "flag arguments" looks fine since it is well known to shell users.
- Martin Panter's "options" looks okay since it is the standard name in GNU Coreutils (https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#Common-options). However I don't like it very much as it is still ambiguous: "options", like "optional arguments", still suggests something that is non required. And "options" is less consistent with "positional arguments" (nobody seems to have suggested "option arguments").
- Oliver Smith's "switches" does not look okay because it is not general enough since it is commonly restricted to Boolean arguments.

Anyway, the first 3 solutions are better than the current "optional arguments". What is blocking the approval of Martin Panter's PR?
History
Date User Action Args
2019-12-03 11:15:25maggyerosetnosy: + maggyero
messages: + msg357750
2019-06-14 03:39:55paul.j3setmessages: + msg345545
2019-06-14 01:38:43markgrandisetnosy: + markgrandi
messages: + msg345542
2018-10-08 23:34:18Jacktosesetnosy: + Jacktose
messages: + msg327376
2016-04-05 07:27:01martin.pantersetfiles: + argparse_option.v2.patch

messages: + msg262893
versions: - Python 2.7, Python 3.5
2016-03-28 04:54:16martin.pantersetmessages: + msg262553
2016-03-24 03:03:26paul.j3setmessages: + msg262323
2016-03-24 00:31:41martin.pantersetmessages: + msg262315
versions: + Python 3.5, Python 3.6
2016-03-23 19:21:10paul.j3setmessages: + msg262297
2016-03-23 14:51:39shahargsetversions: - Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5
nosy: + shaharg

messages: + msg262273

components: - Documentation
2016-01-27 09:27:38tonygaetanisetnosy: + tonygaetani
2015-11-03 14:05:19Albert Whitesetnosy: + Albert White
2015-05-16 00:30:11martin.pantersetmessages: + msg243290
stage: needs patch -> patch review
2014-12-19 05:24:10martin.pantersetfiles: + option-internal.patch

messages: + msg232928
2014-12-16 06:27:57martin.pantersetfiles: + option-internal.patch

messages: + msg232715
versions: + Python 3.5
2014-11-14 21:51:15rhartkopfsetfiles: + argparse_option.patch
nosy: + rhartkopf
messages: + msg231189

2014-09-02 23:29:40r.david.murraysetmessages: + msg226290
2014-09-02 22:11:38terry.reedysetmessages: + msg226286
2014-09-02 20:25:02Oliver.Smithsetfiles: + parrot.py
nosy: + Oliver.Smith
messages: + msg226279

2014-02-14 07:33:36paul.j3setfiles: + alt_grouping2.py
2014-02-14 07:32:12paul.j3setfiles: + helpgroups.diff
keywords: + patch
messages: + msg211205
2014-02-13 08:34:38paul.j3setfiles: + alt_grouping.py

messages: + msg211132
2014-02-13 03:22:54paul.j3setmessages: + msg211125
2014-02-13 01:32:07rhettingersetnosy: + rhettinger
messages: + msg211121
2014-02-10 10:22:32terry.reedysetversions: - Python 3.2
2014-02-10 08:21:29martin.pantersetnosy: + martin.panter
messages: + msg210808
2014-01-21 15:59:07Martin.d'Anjousetnosy: + Martin.d'Anjou
messages: + msg208659
2013-09-16 07:00:54paul.j3setnosy: + paul.j3
2012-08-28 06:24:38mburgersetnosy: + mburger
2012-07-22 23:40:56bethardsettitle: argparse: Default Help Message Lists Required Args As Optional -> argparse required arguments displayed under "optional arguments"
messages: + msg166183
versions: + Python 3.4
2012-07-22 23:39:04bethardlinkissue15336 superseder
2012-07-21 22:06:01bethardlinkissue13818 superseder
2012-03-18 22:49:29tshepangsetnosy: + tshepang
2011-03-27 23:24:15eric.araujosetversions: + Python 2.7, Python 3.2
2011-03-27 14:20:43bethardsetassignee: docs@python
components: + Documentation, - Library (Lib)
versions: + Python 3.3, - Python 3.2
nosy: + docs@python

messages: + msg132327
stage: needs patch
2010-08-28 07:03:42bethardsettype: behavior -> enhancement
messages: + msg115148
versions: - Python 2.7
2010-08-27 23:24:00eric.araujosetnosy: + eric.araujo
2010-08-27 19:14:04r.david.murraysetmessages: + msg115117
2010-08-27 18:15:40terry.reedysetnosy: + terry.reedy
messages: + msg115109
2010-08-27 12:47:51r.david.murraysetmessages: + msg115069
2010-08-27 08:57:05bethardsetmessages: + msg115059
2010-08-27 08:48:47bethardsetmessages: + msg115058
2010-08-27 00:14:38eric.smithsetmessages: + msg115048
2010-08-26 23:25:21benschmaussetmessages: + msg115045
2010-08-26 22:41:23eric.smithsetmessages: + msg115038
2010-08-26 22:35:18r.david.murraysetmessages: + msg115037
2010-08-26 21:54:38bethardsetmessages: + msg115032
2010-08-26 19:04:47eric.smithsetmessages: + msg115023
versions: + Python 3.2
2010-08-26 18:44:12r.david.murraysetnosy: + r.david.murray
messages: + msg115021
2010-08-26 18:32:52eric.smithsetnosy: + bethard, eric.smith
messages: + msg115019
2010-08-26 18:19:17benschmauscreate