Dnia 21-09-2007, Pt o godzinie 10:00 -0400, Jim Jewett napisał(a):
> Is it reasonable to expose sys.argv.buffer?
> (Since this would be bytes rather than text, I assume this would be a
> single array, rather than a list of already separated arguments.)
On Unix the arguments are already separated
On 22/09/2007, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we stop this already? The idea is dead. No need to drag it through
> the mud around town for an extended period of time.
It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords.
Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
Paul.
__
On 9/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zitat von Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 9/21/07, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 21/09/2007, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The original context, expressed with some detail by Michael Urman in
http://mail.p
> The filesystem is unrelated to sys.argv, except for the need to pass
> filenames through argv. If the filesystem is using bytes rather than
> characters, then sys.argv must offer the same option, or else certain
> scripts will (under some rare circumstances) fail.
The same holds for file names
