On 5/1/06, John Keyes <john at integralsource.com> wrote: > On 5/1/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > > Wouldn't this be an incompatible change? That would make it a no-no. > > Providing a dummy argv[0] isn't so hard is it? > > It would be incompatible with existing code, but that code is > already broken (IMO) by passing a dummy argv[0]. That's a new meaning of "broken", one that I haven't heard before. It's broken because it follows the API?!?! >I don't > think fixing it would affect much code, because normally > people don't specify the '-q' or '-v' in code, it is almost > exclusively used on the command line. Famous last words. > The only reason I came across it was that I was modifying > an ant task (py-test) so it could handle all of the named > arguments that TestProgram.__init__ supports. > > If the list index code can't change, at a minimum the default value > for argv should change from None to sys.argv. No. Late binding of sys.argv is very important. There are plenty of uses where sys.argv is dynamically modified. > Are the tests for unittest.py? Assuming you meant "Are there tests", yes: test_unittest.py. But it needs work. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4