[stdlib-sig] should we try to add argparse?

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:25, Michael Foord <michael at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:28, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> 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), out of the standard library
>>>> and toss them into PyPI for those who refuse to switch. The standard
>>>> library might not evolve a lot, but it isn't dead or in stone.
>>>>
>>>> But before this can happen, people need to have a general consensus
>>>> that I should bug Steven about contributing as it will require a PEP
>>>> from him. Steven already has commit privileges to maintenance from him
>>>> will not be a problem.
>>>>
>>>> So if you want this to actually happen and for me to start talking to
>>>> Steven just reply to this email w/ a vote.
>>>>
>>>> I am +0
>>>>
>>>
>>> More fuel for the pep(fire):
>>>
>>> http://blogg.ingspree.net/blog/2009/09/14/opster/
>>>
>>
>> It's only more fuel in terms of acknowledging there is another
>> approach using decorators. But since no library that takes that
>> approach is near to being considered best-of-breed by the community or
>> is as stable as argparse I don't consider it that big of a deal.
>>
>
> Although adding a decorator based approach to argparse shouldn't be out of
> the question. Then there really would be MTOWTDI...

It's not, but then I would want it out in the wild first to work out
the API, so still don't find it reasonable for this PEP.

-Brett