Message166779
| Author | nedbat |
|---|---|
| Recipients | bkabrda, chris.jerdonek, ncoghlan, nedbat, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date | 2012-07-29.15:56:45 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1343577406.61.0.728823361148.issue14803@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Chris, I'm not sure how to answer your questions. The more powerful and flexible, the better. There is no "must" here. I'm looking for a way to avoid the hacks coverage.py has used in the past to measure coverage in subprocesses. A language feature that allowed me to externally configure the interpreter to run some of my code first would allow me to do that. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-07-29 15:56:46 | nedbat | set | recipients: + nedbat, ncoghlan, pitrou, chris.jerdonek, serhiy.storchaka, bkabrda |
| 2012-07-29 15:56:46 | nedbat | set | messageid: <1343577406.61.0.728823361148.issue14803@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-07-29 15:56:46 | nedbat | link | issue14803 messages |
| 2012-07-29 15:56:45 | nedbat | create | |