[stdlib-sig] should we try to add argparse?
michael at voidspace.org.uk
Thu Sep 10 23:39:02 CEST 2009
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Michael Foord wrote:
>> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>> Upfront people need to realize that we might have three argument
>>>> parsing libraries for a while, but it won't be forever. If we get
>>>> argparse accepted we would slowly deprecate at least optparse, if not
>>>> getopt (lat time I tried to ditch getopt for Python 3 some argued that
>>>> getopt supported stuff optparse didn't),
>>> +0 on deprecating getopt, -1 on deprecating optparse. Breaking a
>>> perfectly functional and useful module is stupid.
>> So we're stuck with inferior technology?
> If you have the choice between breaking backwards compatibility
> and downloading other implementations from PyPI, I think backwards
> compatibility counts more.
> We've just had a major change in the stdlib for 3.x. Then the 3.0
> release was ditched due to poor performance. If we now start
> deprecating widely used modules in 3.2, we're going to lose
> a major pro argument for using Python: that of a stable eco system
> to write code for.
> I don't think we should deprecate any commonly used module (in the
> 3.x branch) unless there's a clear and documented migration path
> or -even better- a migration wrapper available for the deprecated
> The next major round of refactoring will have to wait for
> Python 4.x.
Language refactoring can wait for 4.0. Library improvements should be
As Brett says, even if we go down this road, optparse won't actually be
removed for several years.
More information about the stdlib-sig