Daniel Shahaf added the comment: Antoine Pitrou wrote on Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:19:20 +0000: > > Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > > I'm not seeing a good justification for doing anything more, though: > > > > - needing to access this information is an exceedingly niche use case > > - I don't see any way for raw_argv to be useful in a cross-implementation > > manner. > > I expect it to be useful in the "launch (almost) the same command in the > same way" situation. > Not that it happens often :-)
What about the "launch a different command with the same interpreter flags" use-case? For example, having 'python -E foo.py --foooptions' want to execute 'python -E bar.py'. Perhaps it'll be cleaner to expose in state_argv ['python', '-E']; in sys.argv ['foo.py', '--foooptions']; and have scripts that want to exec themselves use an idiomatic os.execv(sys.executable, sys.state_argv + sys.argv). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14208> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
