Stargirl Flowers <me@thea.codes> added the comment:
I don't think we should completely write off the possibility of doing this just because the *current* implementation is counter-intuitive. As I expressed in the original post, the explanation of this behavior is rather unsatisfying to newcomers. Also @steven.daprano, please do not confuse one recommendation for implementation for the concept. I agree that printing the Quitter object should not exit the interpreter. However, I disagree that "exit" should not be a special case. Specifically, when using the interactive interpreter the behavior (regardless of implementation strategy) would ideally be: >>> exit (interpreter exit) >>> exit() (interpreter exit) >>> print(exit) Call "exit()" to quit Python. When using the interactive interpreter you can simply type "exit". This behavior closely matches IPython's behavior, and even a cursory search reveals not only individual users running into this and being frustrated, but even threads where this behavior has reached "meme status": https://twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/1414204661360472065?s=19 ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44603> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
