[Python-3000] Low-hanging fruit: change interpreter prompt?

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Mon Dec 4 05:14:40 CET 2006

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> The deficiencies of email shouldn't be dictating the language.
>> The interpreter prompt is hardly part of the language,
> Except that the doctest module and the prevalence of interactive prompt 
> snippets in the documentation mean that it *is* effectively part of at least 
> the standard library, even if not the language proper.
>> and I don't think it would be unreasonable to make a
>> small change here to avoid unnecessarily conflicting
>> with a well-established convention (I wouldn't call
>> it a "deficiency").
> True, but the workaround to align the two conventions if you work with email a 
> lot (i.e., including "sys.ps1 = '.>>> '" or similar in your PYTHONSTARTUP 
> script) is simple enough that it just doesn't seem worth the hassle of 
> changing all the doctests and various other bits of documentation to reflect a 
> new default interactive prompt.
> All a somewhat moot discussion though, given that Guido has explicitly stated 
> that *he* wants to leave it alone, and he wins as the BDFL* :)
> Cheers,
> Nick.
> *Bikeshed Discussion Finishing Leader, perhaps? ;)

Well,  maybe finished.  I agree with all of the above.

But on a some what related note, should it be part of the language in a more 
formal way.  Maybe even go as far as allowing the prompts to be in eval and exec 
function code strings.

It may also be nice if I could cut command line example code (including the 
prompts) and paste it back into the console (and idle) and just have it work.

Or cut from one console window and past it into another and have it work.

Would it be doable or too messy to bother with?


More information about the Python-3000 mailing list