On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 06:40, Alexander Belopolsky < alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > .. So a policy has to be define regarding the > > correct usage of these directives/markups, and probably documented in > > Doc/documenting/markup.rst > > I wonder if in addition to documenting proper markup you could add an > option to argparse to generate help in ReST format. I understand that > this will not be immediately useful for trace.py which uses getopt and > getopt does not have enough structured data to generate good help. On > the other hand, upgrading trace.py to use argparse may not be a bad > idea. > I actually considered switching to argparse when I noticed that trace.py still lives with getopt (personally I've long been using optparse). However, I wonder what this means for backwards compatibility. Is it valid to switch trace.py to use the newer command-line argument parsing module that's only available in the newest versions of Python? I guess it could be since trace.py is stdlib which always arrives with its relevant version of Python. This *would* mean, however, that trace.py would be incompatible between 2.7 (argparse) and 2.6 (which doesn't have argparse), but I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. Eli
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
