Re: The bake-off
[email protected] Thu, 30 May 2002 15:17:19 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.getopt |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[Greg Ward Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:58:37AM -0400] > On 30 May 2002, [email protected] said: > > i came in late to the SIG but it appears that in the last two or three > > month discussion was non-existent. The original SIG-people seem > > to agree on Optik so i respectfully stay out of their way. > > If you are referring to your proposal of 9 April in this post: > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-April/000121.html > > then here's my belated reaction: too clever and too implicit. I like > the fact that Python enables code inspection, but I think relying on it > for everyday work like option-parsing is just wrong. If you really, > really want to promote your proposal, then 1) how about an > implementation, and 2) supply an entry for the bake-off at > > http://www.python.org/sigs/getopt-sig/compare.html > > I'm pretty sure that I'll still prefer Optik, though. thanks! I understand the criticism. Bear in mind though that i was *not* suggesting an alternative to Optik. the idea was to make it *even cheaper* to write cmdline-tools with a rich interface. The basic idea is to construct a 'namespace'-mapping between the shell-cmdline and a python function (or class). I suggested to use Optik as the backend for this. I was (and probably still am <wink>) willing to implement this but it is difficult if there is no feedback :-) regards, holger