Cherniavsky Beni <b...@google.com> added the comment: [sorry, html mail was bad idea]
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 17:54, Antoine Pitrou <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: > > It's more useful to have a hook called when entering interactive mode, > > rather than a flag > > that's set from the beginning: > We already have such a hook: $PYTHONSTARTUP Good point! It covers the user's desire customization very well (esp. if it worked with -i). sys.__interactivehook__ has the benefit of being cleanly settable from python code. But it might well be a YAGNI idea. > $PYTHONSTARTUP doesn't work with -i Perhaps it should? I can't think of a thing that makes sense in $PYTHONSTARTUP that I wouldn't want with -i. (and if there is one, one can add a test for sys.flags.interactive, or run with env PYTHONSTARTUP='') Point to watch out for: errors in $PYTHONSTARTUP. One of the uses of "python -i script.py" is doing pdb.pm() on an exception thrown by the script; ideally a broken $PYTHONSTARTUP would not overr > > BTW, drawback of doing any such setup in site.py: "python -S" > > would be unfriendly! > People using -S don’t want the customizations done in site, so I > don’t think there’s a problem here. python -S doesn't disable readline. What makes completions more of a "customization" than editing? The fact that it'd be implemented in site.py? Yes, obviously, if it's implemented in site.py, -S should disable it. My point was that it doesn't have to be implemented there. You could drink the cool aid instead :-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue5845> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
