Victor Stinner victor.stinner at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 11:46:05 CEST 2015

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Issue #25256: Add sys.debug_build?
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Issue #25256: Add sys.debug_build?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

2015-10-02 9:37 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
> Spell it as "sys.implementation.debug_build" and I'm in favour.

Oh, in fact, I don't have no preference between sys.debug_flag and
sys.implementation.debug_flag. If I understood correctly, Serhiy would
prefer sys.implementation.debug_flag because he doesn't want to add
yet another symbol to the sys namespace.

But Berker Peksag wrote:

"According to the sys.implementation documentation and PEP 421, we can
only add a private attribute without writing a PEP. But I find
sys.implementation._debug_build too long and ``from sys import
implementation; implementation._debug_build``(or ``from sys import
implementation as i; i._debug_build``) is also not easy to write. So
I'm +1 to sys.debug_build."

Should I write a PEP for a new field in sys.implementation?

Victor

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Issue #25256: Add sys.debug_build?
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Issue #25256: Add sys.debug_build?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list