Message188608
| Author |
paul.j3 |
| Recipients |
amcnabb, bethard, docs@python, guilherme-pg, paul.j3, r.david.murray, v+python |
| Date |
2013年05月06日.22:45:44 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1367880345.27.0.562116113891.issue14191@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
This is a revision of the test_intermixed.py that I submitted earlier. Now `parse_intermixed_args` acts like `parse_args', and calls `parse_known_intermixed_args`. Again it is form that can exercise the idea without modifying `argparse.py`.
If the parser has incompatible features (REMAINDER, PARSER, or certain exclusive groups), it raises an error. However to facilitate testing I included a `_fallback` backdoor. If not default None it will be called instead of raising the error.
While making documentation changes, I got to wondering whether 'interspersed' would be a better term than 'intermixed'. optparse has an 'interspersed' option and api. However the getopt documentation does use 'intermixed'. |
|