On Aug 5, 4:32 am, Jean-Michel Pichavant
wrote:
> samwyse wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 1:20 am, Steven D'Aprano > t...@cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:19:46 -0700, samwyse wrote:
>
> >>> Fortunately, I don't need the functionality of the object, I just want
> >>> something that w
samwyse wrote:
On Aug 3, 1:20 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:19:46 -0700, samwyse wrote:
Fortunately, I don't need the functionality of the object, I just want
something that won't generate an error when I use it. So, what is the
quickest way to to create such an ob
On Aug 3, 1:20 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:19:46 -0700, samwyse wrote:
> > Fortunately, I don't need the functionality of the object, I just want
> > something that won't generate an error when I use it. So, what is the
> > quickest way to to create such an object (replaci
Why not just add the google app engine lib subdirectories to your python
path?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Jean-Michel Pichavant <
jeanmic...@sequans.com> wrote:
> samwyse wrote:
>
>> I'm writing for the Google app engine and have stubbed my toe yet
>> again on a simple obstacle. Non-trivia
samwyse wrote:
I'm writing for the Google app engine and have stubbed my toe yet
again on a simple obstacle. Non-trivial app engines programs require
the import of several modules that aren't normally in my PYTHONPATH.
I'd like to be able to test my code outside of the app engine
framework. I'v
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:19:46 -0700, samwyse wrote:
> Fortunately, I don't need the functionality of the object, I just want
> something that won't generate an error when I use it. So, what is the
> quickest way to to create such an object (replacing the 'pass' in my
> first snippet). My solution
