Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > I'm -0.5 myself, though, for the reason that it complicates the startup > > process a little bit more, without looking very compelling. It smells > > disturbingly like LD_PRELOAD to me. > > Antoine, do you have a suggestion for how to solve the coverage.py > problem? To re-iterate: imagine you have a large test suite, and it > spawns python processes during the tests. Mercurial, for example, is > like this. You want to measure the coverage of your test suite. This > means not do you have to invoke the main suite with "python > coverage.py run tests.py" instead of "python tests.py", but all the > subprocess invocations need to invoke coverage.py as well.
Ok, sorry then, I retract what I said. I agree the use case is legitimate. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14803> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
