[Python-Dev] Pronouncement on PEP 389: argparse? (original) (raw)

Olemis Lang olemis at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 22:10:20 CET 2009

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

Steven Bethard wrote:

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Olemis Lang <olemis at gmail.com> wrote:

I thought that one of the following approaches would be considered :

 1 - let optparse remain in stdlib (as is or not ...)  2 - re-implement optparse (i.e. a module having the same name ;o) using  argparse isn't it ? Please read the PEP if you haven't, particularly the "Why isn't the functionality just being added to optparse?" section. I don't believe it is sensible to re-implement all of optparse. [...] For what it's worth, I'm still not sure it's a good idea, for exactly the reason Ian points out - "having another class like OptionParser also feels like backward compatibility cruft". People also need to remember the very conservative deprecation path for optparse proposed in the PEP - never deprecated in 2.x,

So, I don't get it . What's the difference between this and the first option I mentioned above ? I am probably missing the obvious but if optparse will be «never deprecated in 2.x» then what's gonna happen ? The only options I see are mentioned above (and I thought it was the first one ;o) :

-- Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article: Looking for a technique to create flexible, graphical dashboards ...

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list