On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:24 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: > skip at pobox.com writes: > >> Fredrik> a quit/exit command that actually quits, instead of >> printing a >> Fredrik> "you didn't say please!" message. >> >> I like Fredrik's idea more and more. > > The thing that bothers me about it is that the standard way you tell > python to do something is "call a function" -- to me, a special case > for exiting the interpreter seems out of proportion. Just brainstorming, but -- maybe this means we should generalize the idea? I.e., allow other cases in which "just mentioning X" means "call function Y [with the following arguments]", at least at the interactive prompt if not more generally. If /F's idea gets implemented by binding to names 'exit' and 'quit' the result of some factory-call with "function to be called" set to sys.exit and "arguments for it" set to () [[as opposed to specialcasing checks of last commandline for equality to 'exit' &c]] then the implementation of the generalization would be no harder. I do find myself in sessions in which I want to perform some action repeatedly, and currently the least typing is 4 characters (x()<enter>) while this would reduce it to two (iPython does allow such handy shortcuts, but I'm often using plain interactive interpreters). If this generalization means a complicated implementation, by all means let's scrap it, but if implementation is roughly as easy, it may be worth considering to avoid making a too-special "special case" (or maybe not, but brainstorming means never having to say you're sorry;-). Alex
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