Message309691
I tend to agree with you about pre-scanning the arguments to find options. But at this point, our options to change the code are limited. The last time I looked at this (and it's been years), I came to the conclusion that the argument pre-scanning was sufficiently baked in to argparse that a separate traditional" mode was better done as a separate library.
But I lack the time and energy to research if there's an existing third party library that's acceptable, what it would take to enhance optparse, or write a new library.
It sounds like what you want is optparse, but with help in processing positional arguments. Is that a fair statement? Or is there some other feature of argparse that's preventing you from using optparse? I know for me it's help with positional arguments.
I think at some point we need to close this bug, because I don't see a way of modifying argparse to do what you (and I) want. paul.j3 explains several times in his messages on this thread that it's just how argparse fundamentally works. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2018-01-09 09:08:13 | eric.smith | set | recipients:
+ eric.smith, rhettinger, cben, amcnabb, bethard, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, memeplex, gfxmonk, evaned, andersk, abacabadabacaba, gdb, nelhage, drm, davidben, martin.panter, paul.j3, skilletaudio, Christophe.Guillon, danielsh, spaceone, Clint Olsen, karzes |
2018-01-09 09:08:13 | eric.smith | set | messageid: <1515488893.39.0.467229070634.issue9334@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2018-01-09 09:08:13 | eric.smith | link | issue9334 messages |
2018-01-09 09:08:13 | eric.smith | create | |
|