[Python-Dev] Thoughts on running Python 3.5 on Windows (path, pip install --user, etc)
Paul Moore
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 00:18:53 CET 2015
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Mar 10 00:18:53 CET 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Thoughts on running Python 3.5 on Windows (path, pip install --user, etc)
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Thoughts on running Python 3.5 on Windows (path, pip install --user, etc)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 9 March 2015 at 23:11, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > While I like the idea of offering something more "built in" in this space, > my initial inclination is to prefer extending "-m" to accept the > "module.name:function.name" format to let you invoke entry points by the > name of the target function (Possible API name: runpy.run_cli_function), and > then add a "runpy.call" that can be used to call an arbitrary function with > positional and keyword string arguments based on sys.argv and (optionally?) > print the repr of the result. > > It wouldn't be a universal panacea (and would need a PEP to work out the > exact UX details), but would likely make quite a few libraries more command > line accessible without needing to modify them. Personally I doubt it would make much difference. If the docs say "pygmentize" I'm unlikely to dig around to find that the incantation "python -m pygments.somemodule:main" does the same thing using 3 times as many characters. I'd just add Python to my PATH and say stuff it. Paul
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Thoughts on running Python 3.5 on Windows (path, pip install --user, etc)
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Thoughts on running Python 3.5 on Windows (path, pip install --user, etc)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list