On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Scott Kruger <kru...@txcorp.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/18 12:44 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org <mailto:
>> j...@jedbrown.org>> wrote:
>> Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com <mailto:knep...@gmail.com>>
>> > That is not the same as printing unused arguments. Michael's Pythia
>> > does this correctly, but it is even less simple.
>> You want it to accept the unused arguments and just print them without
>> error, or some more subtle relationship among dependent options?
>> Yes, I do. I consider PETSc to have the correct functionality. The open
>> assumption is a good one, as long as you report that no one accepted that
> Requires Python > 2.7
The other thing I remember argparse not doing last time I checked, was that
group options into sections like we want for our help.
>> here in a thread about not silently accepting options that *don't
>> exist anywhere*.
>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
>> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
>> experiments lead.
>> -- Norbert Wiener
>> https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
> Tech-X Corporation kru...@txcorp.com
> 5621 Arapahoe Ave, Suite A Phone: (720) 974-1841
> Boulder, CO 80303 Fax: (303) 448-7756
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
-- Norbert Wiener