Message84436
| Author |
taleinat |
| Recipients |
gpolo, taleinat |
| Date |
2009年03月29日.22:01:32 |
| SpamBayes Score |
9.798097e-09 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1238364094.7.0.485215180018.issue1757057@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Sending a code object back to the parent process and having it deal with
the situation sounds very unpleasant indeed! I think a completely
different type of solution may be possible.
In general, I can't think of any reason for IDLE to pickle "user
objects" from the subprocess and send them to the parent process; it
should merely send back the output (as strings), with special cases for
exceptions and such. By "user objects" I mean objects "inside the
interpreter", as opposed to those used by IDLE itself.
I'll have to unwind the spaghetti in rpc.py, run.py and PyShell.py a bit
more to propose a specific set of changes; I hope to get to that tomorrow. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2009年03月29日 22:01:35 | taleinat | set | recipients:
+ taleinat, gpolo |
| 2009年03月29日 22:01:34 | taleinat | set | messageid: <1238364094.7.0.485215180018.issue1757057@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2009年03月29日 22:01:33 | taleinat | link | issue1757057 messages |
| 2009年03月29日 22:01:32 | taleinat | create |
|