Am 20.07.2010 19:32, schrieb Fred Drake:
Switching to python -m is generally good where it applies (as in this case).
The original intent for :option: and :program: were in their use as
references rather than in sample command lines.
Georg should be the final arbiter, but I'd be in favor
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 20:34, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Sorry to add the third way to the mix, but shouldn't the recommended
way to run a module as a script be python -m modname? As in
$ python -m test.regrtest test_spam
This is true but orthogonal to our problem, which is that
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
.. shouldn't the recommended
way to run a module as a script be python -m modname? As in
$ python -m test.regrtest test_spam
..
So, how can a decision be reached on this issue? I'd like to fix the
relevant docs because
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
Note also that argparse/optparse does not know about -m way either:
$ python -m profile -h
Usage: profile.py [-o output_file_path] [-s sort] scriptfile [arg] ...
I am not sure if it is possible for
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
..
``python regrtest.py test_spam.py``
Which way to choose? I will update my patch to reflect this.
Sorry to add the third way to the mix, but shouldn't the recommended
way to run a module as a script be python -m modname?
Switching to python -m is generally good where it applies (as in this case).
The original intent for :option: and :program: were in their use as
references rather than in sample command lines.
Georg should be the final arbiter, but I'd be in favor of ``...`` for
command lines.
Sorry to add the third way to the mix, but shouldn't the recommended
way to run a module as a script be python -m modname? As in
$ python -m test.regrtest test_spam
This is true but orthogonal to our problem, which is that
:program:`python -m thing` is wrong if I understood the doc rightly
