Meta Issue for Future Parser Changes

[Rowlando13]

We are not adding anything to #2205. This is for changes after #2205 is merge.

We need to have a grasp on the parser as a whole. For each requested new parser change we need:

• a minimal example of the desired behavior
• can it be done with current parser
• If it can be, it is documented

Issues already slated for addition in parser rewrite are not included in the list.

In-Progress Rewrite

• rewrite the parser #2205

Preparation for Future Additions

• Document existing parser fully #2835

Issues

• Allow nargs=-1 in options with a non-whitespace separator #2771
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - yes
  • documented - No
  • status - tbd
• Allow attaching dynamic parameters to contexts #2783
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - no
  • documented - No
  • status - tbd
• Support for Automatically Parsing Negative Number Arguments #2676
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - yes
  • documented - Yes, but could be better
  • status - tbd
• Unexposed option name is None when the parameter name is not a python identifier #2768
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - technically yes, but really no
  • documented - ?
  • status - tbd
  • Related:
    • Non-identifier string for argument with kwargs #2433
• provide access to a normalized list of args that will result in the same params #1279
  • have example - ?
  • can be done now - ?
  • documented - ?
  • status - tbd
• dynamic choice options #928
  • have example - ?
  • can be done now - ?
  • documented - ?
  • status - tbd

[Rowlando13]

@kdeldycke @janluke @ofek Feel free to request adds. I went through open issues to generate this, but I know many were opened and closed. I am also a bit unclear on what is and is not the parser, so the list may not be exactly right.

[Rowlando13]

@AndreasBackx Let me know what you think.

[davidism]

This issue already tracks many of the issues related to the parser rewrite: #2205

[kdeldycke]

@Rowlando13 I'll have to revisit my feature list and hacks in light of the new architecture anyway. And I don't want to add too much constraints that can slow down that effort. So I would say to just go ahead with the rewrite of the parser! 😃 I'll catch up later! 😁

[Rowlando13]

Yeah, this is for future work. I did not want to add anything to #2205 since it was already in progress and seemed large.

[Rowlando13]

I will have to change the wording. I meant this to be for stuff after the current rewrite.