On 5/1/06, John Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. Late binding of sys.argv is very important. There are plenty of
> > uses where sys.argv is dynamically modified.
>
> Can you explain this some more? If it all happens in the same
> function call so how can it be late binding?
You seem to be
On 5/1/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/1/06, John Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/1/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Wouldn't this be an incompatible change? That would make it a no-no.
> > > Providing a dummy argv[0] isn't so hard is it?
> >
>
At 06:11 PM 5/1/2006 +0100, John Keyes wrote:
>On 5/1/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't this be an incompatible change? That would make it a no-no.
> > Providing a dummy argv[0] isn't so hard is it?
>
>It would be incompatible with existing code, but that code is
>already
On 5/1/06, John Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't this be an incompatible change? That would make it a no-no.
> > Providing a dummy argv[0] isn't so hard is it?
>
> It would be incompatible with existing code, but that code is
> a
On 5/1/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't this be an incompatible change? That would make it a no-no.
> Providing a dummy argv[0] isn't so hard is it?
It would be incompatible with existing code, but that code is
already broken (IMO) by passing a dummy argv[0]. I don't
thi
Wouldn't this be an incompatible change? That would make it a no-no.
Providing a dummy argv[0] isn't so hard is it?
On 4/30/06, John Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> main() in unittest has an optional parameter called argv. If it is not
> present in the invocation, it defaults to None.
