On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:55 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Scott Kruger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 3/2/18 12:44 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected] <mailto: > >>> [email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Matthew Knepley <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> writes: > >>> > >>> > 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 > >>> world > >>> assumption is a good one, as long as you report that no one accepted > that > >>> option. > >>> > >> > >> https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#partial-parsing > >> > >> Requires Python > 2.7 > > > > > > Good catch! > > I'm not sure it's quite what Matt is after. Argparse is in the standard > library since 2.7, but is available for earlier versions of Python. > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/argparse > > > The other thing I remember argparse not doing last time I checked, was > > that it could group options into sections like we want for our help. > > That has always been in argparse. Maybe you're thinking of some earlier > options parsing library. > > https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#sub-commands > https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#argument-groups > I knew and used subcommands, but I had not seen argument groups. Matt -- 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/>
