> Agreed, thus my original suggestion of a standalone wrapper executable > (or using ctypes).
That doesn't work well, either - how do we get this wrapper onto the build slaves? It would work if such wrapper shipped with the operating system. > I just think that if someone needs the functionality they'll have an > easy time with existing methods. I don't think it's that easy. It took three people two days to find out how to do it correctly (and I'm still not convinced the code I committed covers all cases). > And I'm not sure it's something to > encourage average use of, if only because Python (and it's child, > potentially unrelated, processes) will behave differently than other > applications. I completely disagree. It's a gross annoyance of Windows that it performs user interaction in a library call. I suspect there are many cases where people really couldn't tolerate such user interaction, and where they appreciate builtin support for a window-less operation. > But it's not like I'm vehemently opposed or anything. At this stage > I'd think having anything that prevented the popups for the buildbots > would be beneficial. Ok, I committed PYTHONNOERRORWINDOW. > Putting it up in the test code (such as > regrtest), seems less intrusive and complicated, It might be less intrusive (although I don't see why this is a desirable property); it is certainly more complicated than calling C APIs using C code. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
