Gooey VS docopt

The name conflicts with a similar python module that allows one to turn any Python console program into a GUI with one line.

https://github.com/chriskiehl/Gooey

Hey! Cool project! I have a question: why do you dump out sys.argv to a local file in the CWD? [0] tmp.txt is hardly a unique name… or am I missing something and this never triggers?

[0] https://github.com/chriskiehl/Gooey/blob/be4b11b8f27f500e732...

This might be of interest to you:

> Gooey - Turn (almost) any Python 3 Console Program into a GUI application with one line

https://github.com/chriskiehl/Gooey

I love gooey: https://github.com/chriskiehl/Gooey

It allows me to quickly slap a GUI on an existing script that accepts command-line-arguments. In the end, I get the best of both world: Discoverability from the GUI, automation through the script, and automatic feature parity between the two.

Downside: Control over the GUI layout is basic, and only "standard" GUI features work, but I never felt limited when using it.

similar for local/individual usage:

https://github.com/chriskiehl/Gooey - take a python-CLI, make a TK-windows

and then probably even simple dashboarding like streamlit.

Like Gooey?

As for how I'd handle it, I would probably combine both into one command-line program, with all filepaths using pathlib and letting argparse handle the options. That way you could optionally generate a GUI with gooey with little extra effort, although this would also add a dependency.

Symfony Console closely follows the well-established docopt conventions. Docopt, based on longstanding conventions from help messages and man pages, ensures a consistent and intuitive interface for describing a program's interface. Symfony Console's adherence to docopt conventions guarantees that your command line tools maintain a standardized and predictable user experience, simplifying development and user interaction.

You probably already know, but just in case you don't, you might read about http://docopt.org/ It seems to me a lot of your usage ideas could be refinements of / tooling around docopt-style interfaces.

http://docopt.org/

Not quite what you asked for, but close: type example invocations to generate the CLI, and just pull the arguments from a dictionary at runtime.

I've been using docopt to handle CLI arguments for years now.

http://docopt.org/

If you aren't averse to using a third party package, on my personal projects I always found https://github.com/docopt/docopt to be nice.

You can kill 2 birds with one stone by documenting your scripts while also providing the argument structure / parsing.

As for the implementation differences, complgen uses a trivial DSL that’s everybody is already familiar with more or less because it’s a slightly more rigorous version of what tools usually spit out when you do command --help (projects like docopt even use that for command line arguments parsing). Those happen to be regular languages and therefore can be represented as a Deterministic Finite Automata. complgen compiles the grammars to DFAs, minimizes the DFA and spits out shell-specific shell completions scripts that simply walk the DFA to match and complete the current input.

The current completion system has a list of rules of which completions to use at which time. It's purposely simple to make it as flexible as possible. The current things I'm planning is a derive macro like what clap has to generate these rules. I'm also considering introducing a plugin that let's you write rules in the format of docopt

For anyone unfamiliar, docopt is an established standard for specifying arguments in a script’s doc string. I use it for Python and it’s lovely. You’re going to write a docstring with examples anyway, why not make them functional?

http://docopt.org/

I like http://docopt.org/ a lot. You seem like someone who might have opinions on that.