Re: sig active or not?

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:46:20PM +0100, David Boddie wrote:
> On Friday 12 Apr 2002 1:32 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/getopt-sig/2002-April/000121.html
> 
> In your proposal, you wrote:
> 
> >  if you say "program --id 17 /etc/passwd /etc/groups"
> >  your program.run function will have the following vars
> >  in locals()
> >
> >         quiet = None
> >         verbose= None
> >         id=17
> >         filein='/etc/passwd'
> >         morefiles=('/etc/groups')
> 
> I think that this is interesting as you automatically obtain variables
> initialised to the desired values, but I can't really comment on the
> method you use.

i guess you mean the code-inspection part? That's a wide field but
i have some experience there and think its not really difficult
to do. 

> How do you propose that options such as "--output-file" are represented
> as variables?

good question.

several possibilities:

1. in the current design:
      def run(
        outputfile=('output-file', '%s') # ...

2. or we could lazily allow to let 'outputfile', 'out-put-file' ...
   to all map to the variable outputfile. The question
   is whether you usually want to *prevent* a cmdline-user
   from using either --outputfile or --output-file.
   personally i wouldn't want to prevent that.

3. maybe a better idea is to improve the design:

   def run(
       outputfile=('--output-file %s', 0) # ...
  
   which is shorter, more flexible and more precise than
   the first suggestion.

what would you prefer or suggest?

    holger