Nick Coghlan wrote: > For that second part: > 1. Is it even worth doing at this stage? I'm not sure to what degree the > new command line flexibility has even been adopted by third party > application packagers, so I have no idea how large the pool of potential > users might be. Should I instead wait until we start seeing complaints > that these tools can't be used with script references that the main > command line will handle quite happily? There is a small, but important class of "scripts that run scripts", which are mostly all development tools (e.g. coverage, my line_profiler, etc.). Doing this correctly in all of the corner cases is reasonably tricky, so I think this is a perfect case for having the functionality implemented once in the standard library. For what its worth, I think Ned Batchelder did the most thorough job of implementing this in the latest version of coverage: http://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/src/tip/coverage/execfile.py -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
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