Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Re: optparse - required options

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: optparse - required options

 
 
Omari Norman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2007
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:31:00PM -0400, Jay Loden wrote:
> Robert Dailey wrote:
> > Well, I don't know what is wrong with people then. I don't see how
> > required arguments are of bad design. Some command-line applications are
> > built around performing tasks based on information received. Compilers,
> > for example. A compiler can't do much of anything unless you give it at
> > the very least a filename. So, a --file command would most definitely be
> > one required argument. Anyway, I'm not trying to start a debate on this
> > issue. I have my own implementation for required arguments at the
> > moment, I am just a little bit surprised that this module doesn't make
> > it convenient. It would definitely help on code duplication.
> >
> > Thanks for your response.

>


> I tend to agree...while "required option" may be an oxymoron in
> English, I can think of quite a few scripts I've written myself (in
> various languages) that needed at least some kind of user input to
> operate. At least the documentation points to some examples for
> helpful hints, example code is a lot better than nothing


The idea with optparse is not that programs should not require certain
information on the command line; rather, the idea is that this
information should be positional arguments, not 'options'.

That is, to use the compiler example:

compiler file

is preferred if a file argument is necessary.

compiler --file file

is not preferred.


--
Due to some violent content, viewer discretion is advised.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steven Bethard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2007
Omari Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:31:00PM -0400, Jay Loden wrote:
>> Robert Dailey wrote:
>>> Well, I don't know what is wrong with people then. I don't see how
>>> required arguments are of bad design.

>
>> I tend to agree...while "required option" may be an oxymoron in
>> English, I can think of quite a few scripts I've written myself (in
>> various languages) that needed at least some kind of user input to
>> operate.

>
> The idea with optparse is not that programs should not require certain
> information on the command line; rather, the idea is that this
> information should be positional arguments, not 'options'.
>
> That is, to use the compiler example:
>
> compiler file
>
> is preferred if a file argument is necessary.
>
> compiler --file file
>
> is not preferred.


I agree with the optparse philosophy, but Practicality Beats Purity.
That's why I was convinced to add "required options" to argparse --
there are too many applications that want that kind of interface.
*I* don't write applications with interfaces like that, but enough
people do that the use case should really be supported.

STeVe
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Holden
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-24-2007
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Omari Norman wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:31:00PM -0400, Jay Loden wrote:
>>> Robert Dailey wrote:
>>>> Well, I don't know what is wrong with people then. I don't see how
>>>> required arguments are of bad design.
>>> I tend to agree...while "required option" may be an oxymoron in
>>> English, I can think of quite a few scripts I've written myself (in
>>> various languages) that needed at least some kind of user input to
>>> operate.

>> The idea with optparse is not that programs should not require certain
>> information on the command line; rather, the idea is that this
>> information should be positional arguments, not 'options'.
>>
>> That is, to use the compiler example:
>>
>> compiler file
>>
>> is preferred if a file argument is necessary.
>>
>> compiler --file file
>>
>> is not preferred.

>
> I agree with the optparse philosophy, but Practicality Beats Purity.
> That's why I was convinced to add "required options" to argparse --
> there are too many applications that want that kind of interface.
> *I* don't write applications with interfaces like that, but enough
> people do that the use case should really be supported.
>

Well, here's to software producers who listen to their users!

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
--------------- Asciimercial ------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
Many services currently offer free registration
----------- Thank You for Reading -------------

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
optparse options icarus Python 2 05-20-2009 07:54 AM
getopt or optparse options/arguments wrapping? Rocky Zhou Python 3 03-18-2007 07:45 PM
optparse and counting arguments (not options) Steven Bethard Python 0 05-10-2006 04:33 AM
Required options in optparse Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy Python 0 10-04-2003 01:31 AM
Re: Iterating over optparse options David Goodger Python 0 06-25-2003 01:46 PM



Advertisments