[issue41980] Argparse documentation is slightly misleading

Andrei Kulakov added the comment: Yannick: the PRs are submitted via github; you can find more detail on contributions workflow / process here: https://devguide.python.org/ -- nosy: +andrei.avk ___ Python tracker

[issue41980] Argparse documentation is slightly misleading

Yannick Gingras added the comment: Raymond, I would love to submit the PR if we reach a consensus on what the new message should be. I'm a bit out of touch with how things work these days. Is Github the best place to submit the PR? Paul, very good digging! Reading the coding and running

[issue41980] Argparse documentation is slightly misleading

paul j3 added the comment: For ArgumentParser, prog is defined as: prog - The name of the program (default: sys.argv[0]) The comment in the `add_subparsers` method is: # prog defaults to the usage message of this parser, skipping # optional arguments and with no "usage:"

[issue41980] Argparse documentation is slightly misleading

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: That sounds likes reasonable improvement. Would you like to submit a PR? -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue41980] Argparse documentation is slightly misleading

Change by Karthikeyan Singaravelan : -- nosy: +paul.j3, rhettinger ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue41980] Argparse documentation is slightly misleading

New submission from Yannick Gingras : In argparse.rst, while documenting ArgumentParser.add_subparsers, ``prog`` is described on line 1630 as: usage information that will be displayed with sub-command help, by default the name of the program and any positional arguments before the