On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:25, Michael Foord <mich...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:28, Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Upfront people need to realize that we might have three argument >>>> parsing libraries for a while, but it won't be forever. If we get >>>> argparse accepted we would slowly deprecate at least optparse, if not >>>> getopt (lat time I tried to ditch getopt for Python 3 some argued that >>>> getopt supported stuff optparse didn't), out of the standard library >>>> and toss them into PyPI for those who refuse to switch. The standard >>>> library might not evolve a lot, but it isn't dead or in stone. >>>> >>>> But before this can happen, people need to have a general consensus >>>> that I should bug Steven about contributing as it will require a PEP >>>> from him. Steven already has commit privileges to maintenance from him >>>> will not be a problem. >>>> >>>> So if you want this to actually happen and for me to start talking to >>>> Steven just reply to this email w/ a vote. >>>> >>>> I am +0 >>>> >>> >>> More fuel for the pep(fire): >>> >>> http://blogg.ingspree.net/blog/2009/09/14/opster/ >>> >> >> It's only more fuel in terms of acknowledging there is another >> approach using decorators. But since no library that takes that >> approach is near to being considered best-of-breed by the community or >> is as stable as argparse I don't consider it that big of a deal. >> > > Although adding a decorator based approach to argparse shouldn't be out of > the question. Then there really would be MTOWTDI...
It's not, but then I would want it out in the wild first to work out the API, so still don't find it reasonable for this PEP. -Brett _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
