paul j3 added the comment:
I can understand changing
'7'.split()
but this change is IMO ugly:
- >>> print(parser.parse_args('--foo B cmd --arg1 XX ZZ'.split()))
+ >>> print(parser.parse_args(['--foo', 'B', 'cmd', '--arg1', 'XX', 'ZZ']))
I've answered a lot of argparse questions on Stackoverflow, and don't recall
anyone being confused by the use of 'split' in the documentation. The
documentation as a whole is overwealming to many users. But not this detail.
Many SO answers use the split idiom. Being aware of this issue I have edited
some of my answers to use lists, even if I used split when creating them in
Ipython. But only in the short cases.
Other times I copy-n-paste a complete (short) script, along with one or more
sample runs (bash line plus printout). That kind of display is closer to what
most new users expect and see. But it does not fit with the doctest format
used in the argparse documentation.
Come to think of it, the doctest example format might be a greater hindrance to
understanding than the split idiom. New users tend to construct complete
scripts, and then complain that it doesn't do what they want. Often I have to
ask them to print sys.argv to see what the shell is giving the parser. And to
print args to see what parser is giving back. New users aren't in habit of
using interactive test inputs as illustrated in the docs.
The patch proposed here may be nice in terms of consistency, but I don't think
it improves readability.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20598>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
