Author abacabadabacaba
Recipients Christophe.Guillon, abacabadabacaba, amcnabb, andersk, bethard, danielsh, davidben, drm, eric.araujo, eric.smith, gdb, gfxmonk, nelhage, paul.j3, r.david.murray, skilletaudio
Date 2013-03-14.17:46:24
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1363283185.19.0.0930615447191.issue9334@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
The way how argparse currently parses option arguments is broken. If a long option requires an argument and it's value isn't specified together with the option (using --option=value syntax), then the following argument should be interpreted as that value, no matter what it looks like. There should be no guesses or heuristics here. That the behavior depends on whether some argument "looks like" a negative number is the most horrible. Argument parsing should follow simple, deterministic rules, preferably the same that used by standard getopt(3).
History
Date User Action Args
2013-03-14 17:46:25abacabadabacabasetrecipients: + abacabadabacaba, amcnabb, bethard, eric.smith, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, gfxmonk, andersk, gdb, nelhage, drm, davidben, paul.j3, skilletaudio, Christophe.Guillon, danielsh
2013-03-14 17:46:25abacabadabacabasetmessageid: <1363283185.19.0.0930615447191.issue9334@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-03-14 17:46:25abacabadabacabalinkissue9334 messages
2013-03-14 17:46:24abacabadabacabacreate