"Tim Peters" <tim.one@home.com> writes: > [Michael Hudson] > > Hmm. While I agree that 'or'ing is the best thing to do by default, > > it would be nice if there was some way of requesting a blank starting > > point (this is the other unresolved issue in PEP 236, after all). > > Maybe it's not worth it. > > Well, there's no reason at all to believe that whatever future statements > IDLE and doctest (for examples) happen to use in their own implementations > are also appropriate for the user-code they're simulating. So the problem > isn't solved in full unless that connection can be broken (is that hard? > offhand it *sounds* like it just needs another yes/no argument). It's a matter of interface, really. It's certainly not at all technically hard. Maybe: compile(text, filename, symbol[, flags[, dont_inherit]]) I worry that saying "you don't inherit behaviour from surrounding code as soon as you pass a flag" might get really, really confusing at times. > OTOH, IDLE and doctest (for examples) can easily enough be written > to use no future-stmts at all of their own, so that code compiled > from them gets a blank starting point. Whether that remains easy > down the road depends on how silly we get in introducing stupid > future stmts <0.9 wink>. This is indeed the issue. we-need-a-tritfield-ly y'rs M. -- Important data should not be entrusted to Pinstripe, as it may eat it and make loud belching noises. -- from the announcement of the beta of "Pinstripe" aka. Redhat 7.0
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