Hey, thanks for a great package!! I don't think the below is a huge issue, but I just spent a few hours debugging it, so I figured I would pass it along.
In my understanding, there are two, roughly equivalent ways one might structure their argparse usage. I won't opine on the relative benefits, only that I've seen both in the wild.
Method 1 works with autoprogram, and is what is outlined in the docs. However, method 2 doesn't work, and actually raises a pretty unhelpful error message. I don't think there's any reason to support method 2, and I could imagine that would be a headache to implement anyway. But, I think it might be possible to detect that a user has done this and raise a helpful error, or even simpler, add a clarifying sentence or two in the docs. (Or even simpler, just leave this issue open for others to find!)
With blessing, I'd be happy to take a stab at editing the docs accordingly. Thanks!
Hey, thanks for a great package!! I don't think the below is a huge issue, but I just spent a few hours debugging it, so I figured I would pass it along.
In my understanding, there are two, roughly equivalent ways one might structure their
argparse
usage. I won't opine on the relative benefits, only that I've seen both in the wild.method 1:
method 2:
Method 1 works with
autoprogram
, and is what is outlined in the docs. However, method 2 doesn't work, and actually raises a pretty unhelpful error message. I don't think there's any reason to support method 2, and I could imagine that would be a headache to implement anyway. But, I think it might be possible to detect that a user has done this and raise a helpful error, or even simpler, add a clarifying sentence or two in the docs. (Or even simpler, just leave this issue open for others to find!)With blessing, I'd be happy to take a stab at editing the docs accordingly. Thanks!