Greg Ewing wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
>> If you want to put more meaning in the argv list, use an option
>> parser.
>
> I want to put *less* meaning in it, not more. :-)
> And using an argument parser is often overkill for
> simple programs.
Would it be possible to split out the (pre) parsing from optparse so that
instead of returning a list, it returns a dictionary of attributes and values?
This would only contain what was given in the command line as a first
"lighter weight" step to parsing the command line.
opts = opt_parser(argv)
command_name = opts['argv0'] # better name for argv0?
Or...
opts = opt_parser(argv)
if "-h" in opts or "--h" in opts:
print("Help on {argv0}: ...".format(opts))
If the dictionary was pre defined with defaults it might be more like..
opts = {'-h':False, '--h':False}
opts.update(opt_parser(argv)
if opts['-h'] or opts['--h']:
print("Help on {argv0}: ...".format(opts))
This avoids the loop for the simplest cases.
A second dispatcher/validator object could then use this as input.
Regards,
Ron
>> The _actual_ meaning of each element depends entirely on the
>> program that's started. For Python-the-language, there isn't any
>> difference between them.
>
> So in your Python programs, you're quite happy
> to write
>
> for arg in sys.argv:
> process(arg)
>
> and not care about what this does with argv[0]?
>
> I hardly see how one can claim that there's
> "no difference" between argv[0] and the rest
> for practical purposes.
>
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
