Improved optparse "varargs" callback example

[gregglind]

BPO	4568
Nosy	@loewis, @birkenfeld
Files	better_optparse_varargs_example.diff: improved optparse varags callback example.

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/birkenfeld'
closed_at = <Date 2008-12-15.09:08:04.725>
created_at = <Date 2008-12-06.23:09:36.987>
labels = ['docs']
title = 'Improved optparse "varargs" callback example'
updated_at = <Date 2008-12-15.17:06:56.926>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/gregglind'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2008-12-15.17:06:56.926>
actor = 'georg.brandl'
assignee = 'georg.brandl'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2008-12-15.09:08:04.725>
closer = 'georg.brandl'
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2008-12-06.23:09:36.987>
creator = 'gregg.lind'
dependencies = []
files = ['12258']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 4568
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 5.0
messages = ['77185', '77513', '77855', '77875', '77877']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['loewis', 'georg.brandl', 'gregg.lind']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'accepted'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue4568'
versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 3.0', 'Python 3.1', 'Python 2.7']

[gregglind]

In the trunk (r67617) documentation for *optparse* callback example 6
doesn't handle negative number arguments, and fixing it is "left as an
exercise for the reader." Well, I'm a reader, and I've attached my stab
at it. Caveat: It relies in trying to coerce the argument into a
float... maybe there's a cleaner way to do it?

(This is my first patch, so I apologize if I've fouled it up in some
way, particularly in the headers of the patch format.)

[loewis]

The 2.5 documentation is not in .rst, so I remove these versions.

[birkenfeld]

I've reformatted and rewritten your patch a bit and applied it as
r67788. Thanks!

[gregglind]

This patch should also be applied into the py3k branch, probably. Good
catch on updating rargs, btw.

[birkenfeld]

Yes, it will be merged to py3k automatically; we normally merge smaller
changes in batches.