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 > already broken (IMO) by passing a dummy argv[0].
That's a new meaning of "broken", one that I haven't heard before. It's broken because it follows the API?!?! >I don't > think fixing it would affect much code, because normally > people don't specify the '-q' or '-v' in code, it is almost > exclusively used on the command line. Famous last words. > The only reason I came across it was that I was modifying > an ant task (py-test) so it could handle all of the named > arguments that TestProgram.__init__ supports. > > If the list index code can't change, at a minimum the default value > for argv should change from None to sys.argv. No. Late binding of sys.argv is very important. There are plenty of uses where sys.argv is dynamically modified. > Are the tests for unittest.py? Assuming you meant "Are there tests", yes: test_unittest.py. But it needs work. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
