[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib

[R. David Murray]

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