Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> writes: > I must admit my initial preference would be the differently named > wrapper. Surely users of the codebase will be invoking stuff via > something opaque which sources the requisite things?
That “something opaque” is the ‘$VENV/bin/activate’ script; many people who join the team will already know that, and I'm trying to make use of that existing convention. > Actually, on trying to write something simple and flexible, since once > made the venv is basicly state WRT the activate script, I'm leaning > towards hacking the activate script, probably by keeping a distinct > file off the the side and modifying activate to source it. Yeah, I'd much prefer to be told there's a hook to use, so that someone who creates a standard Python virtualenv the conventional way will not need to then hack that virtualenv. -- \ “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them | `\ to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their | _o__) own desires.” —Susan Brownell Anthony, 1896 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
