On 1/8/2014 7:19 PM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
On 1/8/2014 3:46 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/8/2014 3:56 PM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
On 1/8/2014 12:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
For a Python editor, as opposed to a general code editor, the Idle
editor works pretty well and has some advantages with respect to
integration with the interpreter.
While true, ISTM in the past there have been 'leakage' related issues
with idle -- are those no longer a concern?
Almost not, see below.
I have looked through most of the Idle issues on the tracker but do not
remember anything about 'leakage' (of memory?)
Of names I think.
As I recall it had something to do with both idle and the application
running in the same namespace? So the leakage was from within idle
affecting the running of the script under development?
By default, Idle runs user code in a separate process from the Idle
process itself, and has for several years. There is a command line
option to revert to the old way (user code in the same process). Some of
us would like to remove that option (and simplify the remaining code a
bit). This option is kept mainly because connecting to the separate
process via sockets sometimes fails on some systems.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
