RFC: Option Parsing Libraries
After releasing the GetPot 1.0 Version I did some research on other packages and I found the the Option Parsing RFC. I totally missed the discussion. How come that nobody contacted me about the GetPot package ? To get a python doc out should not be a problem at all. Not one single person, though, complained until now, since the C++ doc is totally equivalent. Take a look at http://getpot.sourceforge.net for new features of the 1.0 Version. Except for the automated documenting feature (which may be a little intrusive in its format) I don't really see what Optik brings new on the table. Guys, even though GetPot is designed for many languages, I'd like to join the command line parsing discussion. Best Regards, Frank Schaefer.
After releasing the GetPot 1.0 Version I did some research on other packages and I found the the Option Parsing RFC.
What's the Option Parsing RFC?
I totally missed the discussion. How come that nobody contacted me about the GetPot package ?
Because we didn't know you existed?
To get a python doc out should not be a problem at all. Not one single person, though, complained until now, since the C++ doc is totally equivalent.
Take a look at http://getpot.sourceforge.net for new features of the 1.0 Version. Except for the automated documenting feature (which may be a little intrusive in its format) I don't really see what Optik brings new on the table.
Guys, even though GetPot is designed for many languages, I'd like to join the command line parsing discussion.
Too late. We've settled on Optik (under a different name). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
"FS" == Frank S <fschaef@ces.clemson.edu> writes:
FS> After releasing the GetPot 1.0 Version I did some research on FS> other packages and I found the the Option Parsing RFC. I totally FS> missed the discussion. How come that nobody contacted me about FS> the GetPot package ? How come you didn't contact us about the GetPot package? The discussion in February began when Greg Ward proposed Optik as a standard Python module. Guido suggested that there be a general call on the python lists: If there were competing options packages, would people let us know about them. I had never heard of GetPot until I received your mail. (And if I had heard of it, I would have guessed it was illegal except for medical purposes <wink>.) So: There was general consensus that Optik should be added to the standard library. Is there a reason to include GetPot instead of Optik? Procedural issue: The (L)GPL license is unacceptable for standard library modules. I'm sure there are technical issues. Jeremy
participants (3)
-
Frank S. -
Guido van Rossum -
Jeremy Hylton