Shawn Morel [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
gpolo: The argument still doesn't hold. As you point out, it's the
Values class output from __str__ and other behaviour that is being un-
pythonic and leading you to believe it's a dictionary. Adding the
__itter__ method would only make this
Guilherme Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I have asked that myself, shawnmore. Why not let Value subclass dict ?
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
__
Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Subclassing dict seems like a bad idea. The options value returned by
.parse_args() is not supposed to be dict-like, it's supposed to be
object-like. That is, the natural way of accessing values from it is
through dotted attribute access, not
Guilherme Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Given the disagreement found here, I suggest closing this rfe and moving
further discussions to c.l.p.
Thanks djc and rhettinger for your support, and, bethard and shawnmorel
for your different p.o.v.
__
Tracker
Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Closing on OP's request.
--
nosy: +benjamin.peterson
resolution: - rejected
status: open - closed
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
__
djc [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I'd like this. I had one instance where a number of options where
dynamically added to the OptionParser based on loadable modules, so that
I wanted to dynamically iterate over the Values returned as well.
--
nosy: +djc
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
This seems to be a reasonable request.
--
assignee: - gward
nosy: +gward, rhettinger
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
__
Changes by Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
type: - feature request
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
__
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Why can't you just iterate over ``vars(opts)``?
--
nosy: +bethard
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
__
Guilherme Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I consider iterating over opts to be nicer and more pythonic than using
vars(opts), since the latter is just a mask over the ugly opts.__dict__
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
But ``vars()`` is the standard Python mechanism for doing this sort of
thing (that is, treating an object like a dictionary). So, while I
understand that you find iterating over opts to be nicer, calling it
more Pythonic is probably a misuse of
Guilherme Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
There is another reason for considering __iter__ as a more pythonic
solution here. If you print opts, it may lead you to believe that it is
just a regular dict, while it is not. If you were just able to iterate
over it, I think it would be more
Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
My experience in the past has been that the optik/optparse maintainer
doesn't often respond to tickets in this tracker, though perhaps that
has changed recently.
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New submission from Guilherme Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Doing (opts, args) = parser.parse_args(), supposing parser is an
OptionParser instance, gets you an instance of class Values into opts.
This patch adds the __iter__ method to the class Values so it is
possible to iterate over the
Changes by Guilherme Polo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9802/optparse_py3k__iter__.diff
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2444
__
___
15 matches
Mail list logo
