Attempt script name with '.py' appended instead of failing?
For about the 1,000,000th time in my life (no exaggeration :-), I just typed "python.exe foo" - I forgot the .py.
It would seem a simple and useful change to append a ".py" extension and try-again, instead of dieing the first time around - ie, all we would be changing is that we continue to run where we previously failed.
Is there a good reason why we dont do this?
Mark.
For about the 1,000,000th time in my life (no exaggeration :-), I just typed "python.exe foo" - I forgot the .py.
It would seem a simple and useful change to append a ".py" extension and try-again, instead of dieing the first time around - ie, all we would be changing is that we continue to run where we previously failed.
Is there a good reason why we dont do this?
Just inertia, plus it's "not the Unix way". I agree it's a good idea. (I also found in user testsing that IDLE definitely has to supply the ".py" when saving a module if the user didn't.)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
[Mark Hammond]
For about the 1,000,000th time in my life (no exaggeration :-), I just typed "python.exe foo" - I forgot the .py.
Mark, is this an Australian thing? That is, you must be the only person on earth (besides a guy I know from New Zealand -- Australia, New Zealand, same thing to American eyes <wink>) who puts ".exe" at the end of "python"! I'm speculating that you think backwards because you're upside-down down there.
throwing-another-extension-on-the-barbie-mate-ly y'rs - tim
participants (3)
-
Guido van Rossum -
Mark Hammond -
Tim Peters