Mike Meyer wrote: > In that case, you're using the wrong IDE. I run the Python interpeter > inside of Emacs. I edit my code in another buffer. In the source code > buffer, I hit M-C-x, and the current version of the function I'm > currently editing gets sent to the interpreter. Reload is pretty easy > as well - C-c RETURN, and the module I'm editing gets reloaded.
As far as I understand, the OP wanted to do this while single-stepping through the program he's editing. While this might work as a kind of exploration, it's probably not an optimal development strategy. It might be difficult to predict how the program will run the next time if you manipulate it during execution. I think test-driven development as described e.g. in my EPC presentation last year is more rewarding: http://www.thinkware.se/epc2004test/ (See e.g. the log.html) I suppose different languages and tools foster different styles of work, and I can understand that it's frustrating if a favoured style of development isn't really supported by the Python tools--even though few Python programmers bother about single-stepping through their code. In general, it's clearly non-optimal to run code many magnitudes slower than the nominal speed, and I suspect that few people would care to do that unless the structure of the code they work with was messy. I guess it's a bit like driving an old crappy car, and then getting into a new Toyota. I can understand that it seems strange not to have the trunk filled with tools if you're about to take a long trip, but it's probably a mistake to think that this will make the journey with the Toyota more problematic than the trip would have been with a car that you need to repair every now and then. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
