RetroSearch Browse

Mon Oct 4 23:51:08 CEST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049240.html

Quoting Paramjit Oberoi <psoberoi at gmail.com>:

> With a slightly longer script, and a little work in the installer,
> these could be written as:
> 
> Installed:     runpy.py profile demo.py
> Prompt After:  runpy.py -i profile demo.py
> Alt install:   runpy2.4.py profile demo.py
> Build dir:     ./runpy.py profile demo.py
>    - or -        ./scripts/runpy.py profile demo.py

Indeed, it may be possible to get those to *run*, but the problem is that the
semantics of the following two commands are likely to differ:

python <interpreter-options> runpy.py module <script-args>
python runpy.py <interpreter-options> module <script-args

And getting the semantics close enough that the remaining differences don't
matter is likely to be a pain. Certainly, you won't be able to use execfile()
any more, because it doesn't support passing compiler flags.

And the script doesn't have to get much more complicated before it becomes
_harder_ to understand and maintain than the C code required to implement '-m'
(which is really pretty straightforward when it is limited to top-level modules).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan
Brisbane, Australia

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049240.html below:

'-m' option (was RE: [Python-Dev] ConfigParser patches)