RetroSearch Browse

Tue Mar 10 00:18:53 CET 2015 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-March/138707.html

On 9 March 2015 at 23:11, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I like the idea of offering something more "built in" in this space,
> my initial inclination is to prefer extending "-m" to accept the
> "module.name:function.name" format to let you invoke entry points by the
> name of the target function (Possible API name: runpy.run_cli_function), and
> then add a "runpy.call" that can be used to call an arbitrary function with
> positional and keyword string arguments based on sys.argv and (optionally?)
> print the repr of the result.
>
> It wouldn't be a universal panacea (and would need a PEP to work out the
> exact UX details), but would likely make quite a few libraries more command
> line accessible without needing to modify them.

Personally I doubt it would make much difference. If the docs say
"pygmentize" I'm unlikely to dig around to find that the incantation
"python -m pygments.somemodule:main" does the same thing using 3 times
as many characters. I'd just add Python to my PATH and say stuff it.

Paul

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-March/138707.html below:

[Python-Dev] Thoughts on running Python 3.5 on Windows (path, pip install --user, etc)