On 10 January 2018 at 05:18, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: >> Sounds uncontroversial, this can just be done via bugs.python.org. >> > > .. and it has been proposed there over 7 years ago: > <https://bugs.python.org/issue9325>.
Aye, I linked Mario's patch up to that as a higher level tracking issue - the `pdb -m` support is available in 3.7.0a4 :) He's also now submitted comparable patches for a couple of other modules which I'll aim to get to before 3.7.0b1 Cheers, Nick. P.S. For anyone curious as to what the delay has been, the problem is that the *public* runpy API isn't quite flexible enough to support the way some of these other modules want to run code, and even if we had added such an API, they likely would have required refactoring in order to use it. Mario's patches have instead been taking advantage of the fact that these are stdlib modules we're updating, and hence we can get away with using *private* runpy APIs for now, and then based on these conversions, we can look at what features the public runpy API would need in order for us to migrate them away from using those private interfaces. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
