Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
Suppose we have one option, --do, and it is restricted to a set of choices, e.g., job1, job2.
Suppose we have another option, --how, and it is only meaningful if --do=job1 is selected.
It would be nice if the required entry for the --how option, instead of just receiving the values True or False would permit some way of indicating "if --how is job1".
If the --do option were a required positional argument, then it would be fairly easy to handle it via a subcommand. But if it is, itself, optional, then that would not work.
This would be even nicer if it would be possible to make a group required or not required depending on the value of some other option and would work very well with the proposed mutually inclusive groups: #55797 enhancement.
Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
This is a minor feature, which does not need previous discussion elsewhere
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
No response
Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
Suppose we have one option,
--do, and it is restricted to a set of choices, e.g.,job1,job2.Suppose we have another option,
--how, and it is only meaningful if--do=job1is selected.It would be nice if the
requiredentry for the--howoption, instead of just receiving the valuesTrueorFalsewould permit some way of indicating "if--howisjob1".If the
--dooption were a required positional argument, then it would be fairly easy to handle it via a subcommand. But if it is, itself, optional, then that would not work.This would be even nicer if it would be possible to make a group required or not required depending on the value of some other option and would work very well with the proposed mutually inclusive groups: #55797 enhancement.
Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
This is a minor feature, which does not need previous discussion elsewhere
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
No response