On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:11, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, January 27, 2012, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm +1 to making sweeping changes to argument syntax & parsing in sage-5.0
>> or sage-6.0.
>>
>
> Though I don't want to loose any features... and have some respect for our
> 1-year deprecation policy.
+1
The hard part with what I propose are the optional subparsers
(something that isn't currently in argparse, but has a ticket), and
multiple subparsers (to build then test). Hopefully whatever we
implement can be pushed upstream.
>
>
>> On Friday, January 27, 2012, R. Andrew Ohana <andrew.oh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> So I've been looking into restarting ticket #21 now that we have
>>> argparse in python 2.7. The basic premise of the ticket was to make
>>> our command line options use a standard library, however, since it was
>>> opened (a long time ago), the command line options have become an
>>> incredibly cluttered mess as more and more functionality has been
>>> added. To that end, I think we should discuss some sort of uniform
>>> design to command line options. Looking through what sorts of
>>> arguments we already have, and playing around with argparse, I
>>> personally came to the conclusion that sage would do well with
>>> subcommand/subparsers (like mecurial, git, apt-get, aptitude, ...).
>>> Some examples:
>>>
>>> % sage ARGS # this would be for running sage scripts, or a couple of
>>> oddball arguments
>>> % sage notebook ARGS
>>> % sage pkg ARGS # this would include spkg stuff
>>> % sage pkg install # since install has some special flags like -f or -s
>>> % sage test ARGS
>>> % sage build ARGS
>>> % sage {python,maxima,R,gp,...} ARGS # we can consider these programs
>>> as subcommands of sage
>>>
>>> Obviously, this is a fairly significant departure from the current set
>>> command line options, and I'm not convinced this is necessarily the
>>> best way to handle them (I don't necessarily see how to add in
>>> debugging options), which is why I'm bringing this up as more of a
>>> brainstorm rather than any sort of vote (that may be a future thread,
>>> depending on the fallout of this one).
>>>
>>> So as far as feedback I would like
>>>
>>> 1) If you think the above is the general direction we should go, any
>>> thoughts on how it could be improved, and why (also, a +1 wouldn't
>>> hurt, if you don't have any suggestions)
>>> 2) If you don't like the direction of above, but have some other idea
>>> of how we could go about it, and why
>>> 3) You don't think we should make any effort to clean up command line
>>> options, and why
>>>
>>> For 3, I'm well aware that current users would need to relearn command
>>> line options (which is the main argument I see for that perspective),
>>> but ideally any new set of commands should be intuitive, and easy to
>>> learn (plus we have the deprecation period for a reason). If you think
>>> this is a more serious issue than I am making it out to be, please let
>>> me know (and "I don't want to relearn the command line" does not make
>>> a serious issue).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> --
>>> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
>>> sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
>>> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> William Stein
>> Professor of Mathematics
>> University of Washington
>> http://wstein.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> William Stein
> Professor of Mathematics
> University of Washington
> http://wstein.org
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
> sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org-- Andrew -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
