2009/9/15 Michael Foord <mich...@voidspace.org.uk>: > Evolving an existing library, as a rule, is definitely better than replacing > it with a new one. There is a cost involved in removing a library. It isn't > always possible though to meet requirements with an existing API - as is the > case with optparse / argparse.
MAL pointed out http://code.activestate.com/recipes/573441/ - extended optparse to allow definition of required options. Given that one of the requirements that argparse is claimed to meet where optparse doesn't is supporting required arguments, how come this simple recipe hasn't been incorporated into optparse? The optparse/argparse case seems to rest on the argument that optparse cannot be extended to do what argparse does. It seems like this isn't true for all requirements. (And maybe some others could be addressed by judiciously deprecating support for specific internal details that maybe should not have been documented in the first place...) Paul. _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
