Message263216
My main concern with the patch is that it only half fixes the problem. It sounds like it will allow parsing “--opt -x” (if “-x” is not registered as an option), but will still refuse “--opt -h”, assuming “-h” is registered by default. What is the barrier to parsing an argument to the option syntax independently of what option names are registered?
Also the name “args_default_to_positional=True” name is both unwieldy and vague to me. The purpose seems to be to disable option-lookalike-strings from being reserved. Maybe call it something like “reserve_all_options=False” or “reserve_unregistered_options=False”?
I left some thoughts in the code review for the documentation too. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-04-12 01:25:00 | martin.panter | set | recipients:
+ martin.panter, cben, amcnabb, bethard, eric.smith, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, memeplex, gfxmonk, andersk, abacabadabacaba, gdb, nelhage, drm, davidben, paul.j3, skilletaudio, Christophe.Guillon, danielsh |
2016-04-12 01:25:00 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1460424300.11.0.701386505976.issue9334@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-04-12 01:25:00 | martin.panter | link | issue9334 messages |
2016-04-12 01:24:59 | martin.panter | create | |
|