http://pypi.python.org/pypi/plac
Plac is a wrapper over argparse and works in all versions of
Python starting from Python 2.3 up to Python 3.1.
With blatant immodesty, plac claims to be the easiest to use command
line arguments parser module in the Python world. Its goal is to
reduce the
learning curve of argparse from hours to minutes. It does so by
removing the need to build a command line arguments parser by hand:
actually it is smart enough to infer the parser from function
annotations.
Here is a simple example (in Python 3) to wet your appetite:
$ cat example.py
def main(arg: "required argument"):
"do something with arg"
print('Got %s' % arg)
if __name__ == '__main__':
import plac; plac.call(main) # passes sys.argv[1:] to main
$ python example.py -h
usage: example.py [-h] arg
do something with arg
positional arguments:
arg required argument
optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
$ python example.py
usage: example.py [-h] arg
example.py: error: too few arguments
$ python example.py arg
Got arg
$ python example.py arg1 arg2
usage: example.py [-h] arg
example.py: error: unrecognized arguments: arg2
You can find in the documentation a lot of other simple and not so
simple
examples:
http://micheles.googlecode.com/hg/plac/doc/plac.html
Enjoy!
Michele Simionato
P.S. answering an unspoken question: yes, we really needed yet
another
command line arguments parser! ;)
I like it. I'm a constant user of the
def main (a, b=1, c=2):
# ...
if __name__ == '__main__':
main (*sys.argv[1:])
pattern, which provides a minimally semi-self-documenting
approach for positional args, but I've always found the existing
offerings just a little too much work to bother with.
I'll give plac a run and see how it behaves.
Thanks
TJG
After using optparse a couple of times I got the hang of it. Maybe its
docs could be organized a bit better, but it does the obvious things
conveniently once you've figured it out a bit.
Notice that optparse is basically useless in the use case Tim is
considering (positional arguments) since it only manages options.
JM
Same from here. I managed to talk a Java-drilled collegue of mine into
writing a Python script for a little command line utility, but he needed a
way to organise his argument extraction code when the number of arguments
started to grow beyond two. I told him that there were two ways to do it:
do it by hand or do it right. He took the right choice and I took him to
the optparse docs, copied the first example into his code and we adapted it
a little. He just loved the beauty of it.
Stefan
Could you show plac to your friend? I would be curious to know what he
think.
Perhaps he would call out his judgment on optparse ;)
By the way, could you stop naming these "optional arguments", since
positional arguments can be optional as well? It is confusing :)
Thanks
Antoine.
The great thing with English is that you can use nouns as
adjectives without changing them, so you can say "option arguments"
and "position arguments" quite happily here :)
But then you run into the fact that you're having semantic arguments
about argument semantics :(
TJG
Options are options, arguments are arguments. An optional argument is
not an option. It is an argument that can be left out.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:42 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
> Michele Simionato <michele....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Notice that optparse is basically useless in the use case Tim is
> > considering (positional arguments) since it only manages options.
>
> By the way, could you stop naming these "optional arguments", since
> positional arguments can be optional as well? It is confusing :)
>
> Thanks
>
> Antoine.
>
>
It seems I have to take that claim back. A few hours after the
announce I was pointed out to http://pypi.python.org/pypi/CLIArgs
which, I must concede, is even easier to use than plac. It seems
everybody has written its own command line arguments parser!
I think I still find opterator[1] to be simpler and clearer. No magic
global variables, no spooky behaviour with the main function, just a
decorator and docstring.
The second release is out. I have added the recognition of keyword
arguments, improved the formatting of the help message, and added many
tests.
I like this approach to command-line argument parsing! Thanks for
sharing your work.
>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:28 AM Tim Golden wrote:
>> On 02/06/2010 05:37, Michele Simionato wrote:
>>
>> I like it. I am a constant user of the
>>
>> def main (a, b=1, c=2):
>>
>> if __name__ == '__main__':
>> main (*sys.argv[1:])
>>
>> pattern, which provides a minimally semi-self-documenting
>> approach for positional args, but I have always found the existing
>> offerings just a little too much work to bother with.
>> I will give plac a run and see how it behaves.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> TJG
>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:43 AM Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> Tim Golden <ma...@timgolden.me.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> After using optparse a couple of times I got the hang of it. Maybe its
>>> docs could be organized a bit better, but it does the obvious things
>>> conveniently once you have figured it out a bit.
>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:49 AM Michele Simionato wrote:
>>>> Notice that optparse is basically useless in the use case Tim is
>>>> considering (positional arguments) since it only manages options.
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:52 AM Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>>>>> Michele Simionato wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for participating.
>>>>>
>>>>> JM
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:01 AM Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Rubin, 02.06.2010 10:43:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same from here. I managed to talk a Java-drilled collegue of mine into
>>>>>> writing a Python script for a little command line utility, but he needed a
>>>>>> way to organise his argument extraction code when the number of arguments
>>>>>> started to grow beyond two. I told him that there were two ways to do it:
>>>>>> do it by hand or do it right. He took the right choice and I took him to
>>>>>> the optparse docs, copied the first example into his code and we adapted it
>>>>>> a little. He just loved the beauty of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:14 AM Michele Simionato wrote:
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you show plac to your friend? I would be curious to know what he
>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>> Perhaps he would call out his judgment on optparse ;)
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 6:42 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>>>>>> By the way, could you stop naming these "optional arguments", since
>>>>>>>> positional arguments can be optional as well? It is confusing :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Antoine.
>>>>>>>>> But then you run into the fact that you are having semantic arguments
>>>>>>>>> about argument semantics :(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TJG
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:06 AM J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Options are options, arguments are arguments. An optional argument is
>>>>>>>>>> not an option. It is an argument that can be left out.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:46 AM Michele Simionato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems I have to take that claim back. A few hours after the
>>>>>>>>>>> announce I was pointed out to http://pypi.python.org/pypi/CLIArgs
>>>>>>>>>>> which, I must concede, is even easier to use than plac. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>> everybody has written its own command line arguments parser!
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:51 PM alex23 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I still find opterator[1] to be simpler and clearer. No magic
>>>>>>>>>>>> global variables, no spooky behaviour with the main function, just a
>>>>>>>>>>>> decorator and docstring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1: http://github.com/buchuki/opterator
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:28 PM Michele Simionato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second release is out. I have added the recognition of keyword
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, improved the formatting of the help message, and added many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 04, 2010 8:48 PM Kenny Meyer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like this approach to command-line argument parsing! Thanks for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing your work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Submitted via EggHeadCafe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WCF Generic DataContract object Serializer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/59ae2b9e-a3be-4cd5-a0ef-939a7abbdc3a/wcf-generic-datacontract-object-serializer.aspx