On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 at 21:43, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
MAL pointed out http://code.activestate.com/recipes/573441/ - extended optparse to allow definition of required options. Given that one of the requirements that argparse is claimed to meet where optparse doesn't is supporting required arguments, how come this simple recipe hasn't been incorporated into optparse?
That's an excellent question which kind of says something about people's enthusiasm for maintaining optparse, eh?
It says something about the apparent importance of this particular feature in an argument parsing module ;-)
Actually I believe I heard from someone other than Laura that required options were explicitly rejected. And then there's this from the documentation for optparse: required option an option that must be supplied on the command-line; note that the phrase “required option” is self-contradictory in English. optparse doesn’t prevent you from implementing required options, but doesn’t give you much help at it either. See examples/required_1.py and examples/required_2.py in the optparse source distribution for two ways to implement required options with optparse. --David