On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org>wrote:
> 2013/6/24 Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com>: > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:40:13 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski < > fij...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> > wrote: > >>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20 PM, senthil.kumaran > >>> > <python-check...@python.org> wrote: > >>> >> .TP > >>> >> +.BI "\-X " option > >>> >> +Set implementation specific option. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Should probably be "Set the implementation-specific option." > >>> > >>> Is there anyone respecting this notation? (I know pypy does not, it > >>> uses --jit and stuff) > >> > >> CPython does. We introduced it for ourselves, it is up to other > >> implementations whether or not to use it, or use something else. > >> > >> --David > > > > you mean "CPython does not have any implementation-specific options"? > > I would claim -O behavior should be implementation-specific since it's > > nonsense in the optimizations sense, but other than that, it does not > > seem that there is any -X options? > > I wouldn't object to making that -Xno-docstrings or such, but the ship > sailed long ago on -O. > Python 4 change! =)
_______________________________________________ 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
