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.
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
think
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
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 broken
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?
It would be
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 unaware
