A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-October/029108.html below:

[Python-Dev] RFC: Option Parsing Libraries

[Python-Dev] RFC: Option Parsing Libraries [Python-Dev] RFC: Option Parsing LibrariesJeremy Hylton jeremy@alum.mit.edu
Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:35:20 -0400
>>>>> "FS" == Frank S <fschaef@ces.clemson.edu> writes:

  FS> After releasing the GetPot 1.0 Version I did some research on
  FS> other packages and I found the the Option Parsing RFC. I totally
  FS> missed the discussion. How come that nobody contacted me about
  FS> the GetPot package ?

How come you didn't contact us about the GetPot package?

The discussion in February began when Greg Ward proposed Optik as a
standard Python module.  Guido suggested that there be a general call
on the python lists: If there were competing options packages, would
people let us know about them.  I had never heard of GetPot until I
received your mail.  (And if I had heard of it, I would have guessed
it was illegal except for medical purposes <wink>.)

So: There was general consensus that Optik should be added to the
standard library.  Is there a reason to include GetPot instead of
Optik?  Procedural issue: The (L)GPL license is unacceptable for
standard library modules.  I'm sure there are technical issues.

Jeremy




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