Enchancement suggestion for argparse: intuit type from default
robert.kern at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 11:06:48 CET 2012
On 3/15/12 5:59 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 15Mar2012 12:22, Ben Finney<ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> | Roy Smith<roy at panix.com> writes:
> |> I'll admit I hadn't considered that, but I don't see it as a major
> |> problem. The type intuition could be designed to only work for types
> |> other than NoneType.
> | −1, then. It's growing too many special cases, and is no longer simple
> | to describe, so that indicates it's probably a bad idea.
> If `type` is not supplied and `default` is present and not None, `type`
> shall be the type of `default`.
> That seems straightforward to me. It's a single sentence, easy to read
> and understand, and potentially saves a lot of code verbiage (gratuitous
> type= prarameters). I say "gratuitous" because unless `default` is a
> sentinel for "no option supplied", the `type` should always match
> type(default). Or am I wrong about that?
Yes. Not all type(default) types can be called with a string to produce a valid
value. Note that "type=" is really a misnomer. argparse doesn't really want a
type object there; it wants a converter function that takes a string to an object.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Python-list