On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Petr Viktorin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Miro Hrončok <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It might be: > > > > $ python3 -m gettext > > +1 > > > And: > > > > $ python3 -m gettext.msgfmt > > +1 > Note that this means gettext will need to become a package. > > > And (provided as a shortcut): > > > > $ python3 -m msgfmt > > -1. This would mean adding a new top-level module to the standard > library. Let's not pollute that namespace just to provide a shortcut. Speaking of shortcuts, is there a reason that it should be "python -m json.tool" versus "python -m json" (keep the old probably forever, but have the shorter as a synonym)? And as a broader question, is there opposition to generating patches to make packages executable that may be useful as a CLI? Would be nice if the UUID or random modules could directly spit something out, e.g. "python -m uuid -4". Counterargument that you could "python -c "import uuid;print(uuid.uuid4())". Nick
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
