Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Are there any downsides to doing it this way? It seems tightly scoped and > with minimal overhead. We also need to support quit(), if we go this route. It makes parsing in the REPL a bit slower because it needs to check for this at every command and is a bit "floating" in the middle of the parser and the compiler (but that's a consequence that we don't have any defined layer for this). We also need to check that this also works with piping input. Other than that, only arguments based on the purity of the language, but I think having this working is far more important. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
