Steven Bethard wrote: > Omari Norman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:31:00PM -0400, Jay Loden wrote: >>> Robert Dailey wrote: >>>> Well, I don't know what is wrong with people then. I don't see how >>>> required arguments are of bad design. >>> I tend to agree...while "required option" may be an oxymoron in >>> English, I can think of quite a few scripts I've written myself (in >>> various languages) that needed at least some kind of user input to >>> operate. >> The idea with optparse is not that programs should not require certain >> information on the command line; rather, the idea is that this >> information should be positional arguments, not 'options'. >> >> That is, to use the compiler example: >> >> compiler file >> >> is preferred if a file argument is necessary. >> >> compiler --file file >> >> is not preferred. > > I agree with the optparse philosophy, but Practicality Beats Purity. > That's why I was convinced to add "required options" to argparse -- > there are too many applications that want that kind of interface. > *I* don't write applications with interfaces like that, but enough > people do that the use case should really be supported. > Well, here's to software producers who listen to their users!
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden --------------- Asciimercial ------------------ Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet Many services currently offer free registration ----------- Thank You for Reading ------------- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
