5 ms·

i mostly agree with those choices. colorsys: a small handful of conversion functions you need every now and then fileinput: quick and dirty boilerplate for wh

i mostly agree with those choices. colorsys: a small handful of conversion functions you need every now and then fileinput: quick and dirty boilerplate for when you want to accept input from files or stdin getopt: a fine, well understood command line parser optparse: it's a simpler more broken argparse that will eventually tell you "i'm sorry dave..." and people should stop using it wave: great way to create or process pcm audio data without a whole framework

genmud 5y ago
I disagree that optparse is more broken than argparse. As someone who wanted to add some (trivial) features to argparse, I quickly backed away from that code [1]. To be honest, I was really surprised how needlessly complex that particular code is. [1] - https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Lib/argparse.py https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Lib/argparse.py
- sigg3 5y ago
  Thank you. I thought I was crazy for feeling it was too complex.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Argparse is also broken. It's not possible to create an argument that captures all remaining arguments even though the docs say it is. There has been an open bug for this for many years.
  - jwilk 5y ago
    Link to the bug?
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      https://bugs.python.org/issue17050 https://bugs.python.org/issue17050 Apparently after 7 years they decided it can't be fixed and updated the docs.
      - jwilk 5y ago
        I'm baffled with the resolution of this bug. Removing the docs doesn't help anybody. In my experience, argparse.REMAINDER works reasonably well, and apparently I'm not alone; there's >100 packages in Debian that use it: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbargparse%5B.%5DREMAINDER%5Cb https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbargparse%5B.%5DRE...
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- __del__ 5y ago
  i suppose they are both broken, but i claim optparse is "more broken" because it lacks the nargs="+" and nargs="?" functionality, and doesn't support positional arguments. it's also valid to suggest that a plate of spaghetti is better than a cauldron full (thus favoring optparse).

genmud 5y ago

I disagree that optparse is more broken than argparse. As someone who wanted to add some (trivial) features to argparse, I quickly backed away from that code [1]. To be honest, I was really surprised how needlessly complex that particular code is. [1] - https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Lib/argparse.py https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Lib/argparse.py

sigg3 5y ago
Thank you. I thought I was crazy for feeling it was too complex.
akvadrako 5y ago
Argparse is also broken. It's not possible to create an argument that captures all remaining arguments even though the docs say it is. There has been an open bug for this for many years.
- jwilk 5y ago
  Link to the bug?
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    https://bugs.python.org/issue17050 https://bugs.python.org/issue17050 Apparently after 7 years they decided it can't be fixed and updated the docs.
    - jwilk 5y ago
      I'm baffled with the resolution of this bug. Removing the docs doesn't help anybody. In my experience, argparse.REMAINDER works reasonably well, and apparently I'm not alone; there's >100 packages in Debian that use it: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbargparse%5B.%5DREMAINDER%5Cb https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbargparse%5B.%5DRE...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
__del__ 5y ago
i suppose they are both broken, but i claim optparse is "more broken" because it lacks the nargs="+" and nargs="?" functionality, and doesn't support positional arguments. it's also valid to suggest that a plate of spaghetti is better than a cauldron full (thus favoring optparse).