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

• #2205

Preparation for Future Additions

• #2835

Issues

• [ ] #2771
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - yes
  • documented - No
  • status - tbd
• [ ] #2783
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - no
  • documented - No
  • status - tbd
• [ ] #2676
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - yes
  • documented - Yes, but could be better
  • status - tbd
• [ ] #2768
  • have example - yes
  • can be done now - technically yes, but really no
  • documented - ?
  • status - tbd
  • Related:
    • #2433
• [ ] #1279
  • have example - ?
  • can be done now - ?
  • documented - ?
  • status - tbd
• [ ] #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: https://github.com/pallets/click/issues/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.

[ofek]

Is there a branch featuring what exists of the rewrite?

[Rowlando13]

@ofek Its #2205 If want to take a look.

[Rowlando13]

@ofek sorry no branch is referenced in #2205. @AndreasBackx what branch were you using?

[AndreasBackx]

There is parser-rewrite-1 but that's @davidism's work.

[kdeldycke]

@Rowlando13 What's the relationship between #590 and your inventory? Should we just add it here? Or close #590 in favor of this issue?

[Rowlando13]

Do you mean #2205? #590 Explains that there is very deep issues with the parser but other that that does nothing. At the time that I wrote this I thought Andreas was thinking about trying the parser rewrite using #2205 and so I did not want to add anything to #2205 , I made this inventory as a way to systematize the way we considered whether we should add some parser feature or not.

[kdeldycke]

Do you mean #2205? #590 Explains that there is very deep issues with the parser but other that that does nothing. At the time that I wrote this I thought Andreas was thinking about trying the parser rewrite using #2205 and so I did not want to add anything to #2205 , I made this inventory as a way to systematize the way we considered whether we should add some parser feature or not.

Ah ok. So maybe #590 can be closed as superseded by #2205 then? 🫢

[Rowlando13]

I think #590 might give some useful perspective. Probably keep open until finish parser rewrite.

[ofek]

Who's working on the rewrite primarily?