On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 October 2016 at 18:25, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The built-in REPL serves two quite divergent use cases, and I think > > we're well past the point where we can't readily support both use > > cases with a single implementation: > > > > - a minimalist interactive environment, that is *always* present, even > > if parts of the interpreter (most notably the import system) aren't > > working or have been deliberately disabled > > - a day-to-day working environment for Python developers > > > > The prevalence of the latter use case then leads to it also being used > > as a tool for introducing new developers to Python. > > Thinking a little further about this, I think the reason I don't use > IPython more, is because my muscle memory types "python" (or more > often, "py") when I want an interactive prompt. And I do that for the > reason you mention - it's always there. > > So I think that it would be really useful to be able to plug in a new > REPL, when it's available. This has a number of benefits: > > Isn't this what aliases are for? Just set "python" to be an alias for "ipython" for your interactive shell. Personally, my muscle memory is trained to always type "ipython3". I only type "python" or "python3" when I specifically want a vanilla shell (such as for trying things out without all my default imports, which I know could be done with profiles but that is even more typing). Having "python3" somehow changed to "ipython3" automatically would make things more difficult for me since I would need to do something more complicated to get back the vanilla shell when I need it.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/