Guido van Rossum wrote: > This looks good. Please make the appropriate changes to the PEP and to > PEP 0 to mark it as accepted.
I should get to that in the next day or two. Thanks. > I think the implementation is fine too (others will have to check it > more carefully) but I noticed that the promised functionality of -m > doesn't work yet It turns out one of the code paths through runpy wasn't getting tested properly, and naturally it was the path that the -m switch relies on. I've posted a new patch which both fixes that code path and adds additional tests to make sure it is doing the right thing. Cheers, Nick. PEP 366 implementation patch (http://bugs.python.org/issue1487) -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org _______________________________________________ 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
