Greg writes:
> I still think it would be very desirable to tie the short and long
> options together. Eg.
>
> options = [('verbose', 'v'),
> ('quiet', 'q'),
> ('thingy', None),
> (None, 'x')
> ('output=', 'o:')]
> opts, args = getopt_or_die (options, usage, ...)
>
Im not convinced this is worth it. I only use "long options" when I
have too many, or a few obscure ones. I have never have "-v"
synonymous for "--verbose" - why bother? I know I would never type
the later:-)
The existing mechanism still handles this quite well - the standard
"if opt==blah:" simply becomes "if opt in [...]:" - no real drag.
Plus its less change for reasonable reward - handy enough I may
actually add command-line handling as I create each little test/util
script :-)
What say anyone else? Go with my "little change", Gregs "only
slightly more change" or "don't worry about it"?
Mark.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4