M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
[snip...]
Replacing prefectly fine working code just for the fun of it, does
not count much as argument for evolving the stdlib.
Unless you are attacking a complete strawman, which is unhelpful and
pointless so please refrain, can you point out who is suggesting
replacing working code "just for the fun of it"?
Just have a look at the various arguments for adding argparse to the
stdlib with the intention of replacing optparse and getopt.
On one hand you have this new API which is not compatible with optparse:
http://argparse.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/argparse-vs-optparse.html#upgrading-optparse-code
On the other you have a rather short list of features that make
argparse different from optparse:
http://argparse.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/argparse-vs-optparse.html
and the fact that argparse has been in the wild for 4.5 months.
Here's an email from 2007 asking when it will be in the standard library:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2007-January/592646.html
Michael
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
_______________________________________________
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
