2013/6/24 R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com>: > There is one. -X faulthandler. I'm sure others would agree about > -O, but that long predates -X.
FYI I didn't chose "-X" because it is specific to CPython, but just because it becomes really hard to choose a random letter to add a new option... I prefer long options, but Python only supports the long option --help. IMO "python -X faulthandler" is more explicit than "python -@" (or "python -f", or any other random letter). If you didn't know, you can also write "python -X faulthandler=1", it does also enable faulthandler... As "python -X faulthandler=0" and "python -X faulthandler=False" :-) (PHP style!) > So, the idea is that -X *can* be used by other implementations for their > own purposes, but there is certainly no requirement that they do so. > Our promise is that anything CPython uses it for is something we don't > expect other implementations to support. It would be nice to have faulthandler or something similar (dump traces on a crash) in other Python implementations :-) faulthandler implementation is very specific to CPython. It uses internal structures and low-level OS features like signal handler and a specific stack for its signal handler. It is better to have it integrated directly into CPython. (But it is also available as a third party module for older versions.) Victor _______________________________________________ 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
