Albert Zeyer added the comment:
Thanks a lot for the long and detailed response! I didn't meant to start a
header war; I thought that my request was misunderstood and thus the header
changes were by mistake. But I guess it is a good suggestion to leave that
decision to a core dev.
I still thing that this would have been more straight-forward in the first
place:
for statement in user_input():
if statement:
value = exec(compile(statement, '<input>', 'single'))
if value is not None: print value
Because it is more explicit. But because introducing such an incompatible
change is bad, I thought it's a good idea to add another compile-mode.
Your `ee_compile` seems somewhat inefficient to me because you call `compile`
twice and I don't like solutions like this very much (try one thing, then try
another thing) as rock-solid solutions. (Of course, neither is
`interactive_py_compile`, that one just shows what I want.)
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue17294>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
