[Python-Dev] Pronouncement on PEP 389: argparse?

Steven Bethard steven.bethard at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 21:00:37 CET 2009

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Olemis Lang <olemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought that one of the following approaches would be considered :
>  - let optparse remain in stdlib (as is or not ...)
>  - re-implement optparse (i.e. a module having the same name ;o) using
>    argparse
> isn't it ?

Please read the PEP if you haven't, particularly the "Why isn't the
functionality just being added to optparse?" section. I don't believe
it is sensible to re-implement all of optparse. What Ian Bicking is
proposing, I believe, is simpler -- adding a few aliases here and
there so that you don't have to rename so many things when you're
upgrading from optparse to argparse.

For what it's worth, I'm still not sure it's a good idea, for exactly
the reason Ian points out - "having another class like OptionParser
also feels like backward compatibility cruft".

Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
        --- The Hiphopopotamus

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list