David Bieber

I see. Yes, that's an important use case. For now you should be able to do this with the experimental decorator `@decorators.SetParseFn(str)` and *varargs. However, this decorator is an undocumented...

For example, with the current implementation of these decorators you can do this: ``` import fire import subprocess @fire.decorators.SetParseFn(str) @fire.decorators.SetParseFns(number_of_repeats=int) def repeat_command(number_of_repeats, *command): for _ in range(number_of_repeats): subprocess.call(command) if __name__...

Thanks for raising this. I'm marking it as a bug. It looks like the call to foo is failing at https://github.com/google/python-fire/blob/37c4305194ff3d0a63f435f08a40e14b1978bd4e/fire/core.py#L475-L480 This is surprising, because calling foo without arguments normally...

See also #343 -- in that issue @melsabagh-kw shows a decorator he wrote to get typeguard typechecking with fire.

Thanks for reporting the issue. Here's the reason for it: Your shell is stripping the quotes from the input to fire. So all Fire sees is `[hel-lo,hello]` in the first...

I think we'll want both. We definitely want to improve this. And while strict mode will remove surprises, we also should separately come up with an intuitive and unambiguous way...

Thanks @stephenvincent27! I'd love to hear more. This is definitely an area we want to improve in Fire.

This is looking good! I agree we can ignore most of those failures of the fuzz test (not sure about what we should do for '...'; see end). We should...

Yes, that sounds good.

Started adding support for coroutines with e4cb72a1350012cf2651f4a233ae2d0ceacb7265. Can you comment on if this is still necessary or if e4cb72a1350012cf2651f4a233ae2d0ceacb7265 covers your use-case?