On 10 January 2018 at 18:30, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 10 January 2018 at 02:39, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> For the coverage.py use case, an environment-based solution is also
>> genuinely helpful, since you typically can't modify subprocess
>> invocations just because the software is being tested. At t
On 10 January 2018 at 02:39, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For the coverage.py use case, an environment-based solution is also
> genuinely helpful, since you typically can't modify subprocess
> invocations just because the software is being tested. At the moment,
> there are approaches that rely on using
On 10 January 2018 at 07:54, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Steve Barnes wrote:
>> Currently invoking `python -c "some;separated;set of commands;"` will,
>> if you need to use any library functions, require one or more import
>> somelib; sections in the execution string. This results in rather
>> complex "
On 10.01.2018 0:54, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Steve Barnes wrote:
Currently invoking `python -c "some;separated;set of commands;"` will,
if you need to use any library functions, require one or more import
somelib; sections in the execution string. This results in rather
complex "one liners".
On the
Steve Barnes wrote:
> Currently invoking `python -c "some;separated;set of commands;"` will,
> if you need to use any library functions, require one or more import
> somelib; sections in the execution string. This results in rather
> complex "one liners".
>
> On the other hand `python -m someli
On 5 January 2018 at 08:12, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> However, the issue then is that "python -M numpy" would just be a less
> flexible alternative to a command like "python -C 'import numpy as
> np'".
For quick one-liners don't underestimate the value of avoiding punctuation:
# No punctuation a
On 5 January 2018 at 16:28, Steve Barnes wrote:
> Currently invoking `python -c "some;separated;set of commands;"` will,
> if you need to use any library functions, require one or more import
> somelib; sections in the execution string. This results in rather
> complex "one liners".
>
> On the oth
An implicit print() would be convenient, too.
On Friday, January 5, 2018, Wes Turner wrote:
> Could it just check if -c and -m are both set?
> That way there'd be no need for -p or -M.
>
> (I have an -m switch in pyline which does exactly this. It makes
> copying and pasting less convenient; bu
Could it just check if -c and -m are both set?
That way there'd be no need for -p or -M.
(I have an -m switch in pyline which does exactly this. It makes
copying and pasting less convenient; but does save having to type 'import
module;’ for one liners)
On Friday, January 5, 2018, Steve Barnes w
Currently invoking `python -c "some;separated;set of commands;"` will,
if you need to use any library functions, require one or more import
somelib; sections in the execution string. This results in rather
complex "one liners".
On the other hand `python -m somelib` will load somelib and attempt
10 matches
Mail list logo
