[Python-Dev] a quit that actually quits

Wed Dec 28 17:06:53 CET 2005

On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:24 AM, Michael Hudson wrote:
> skip at pobox.com writes:
>>> Fredrik> a quit/exit command that actually quits, instead of 
>> printing a
>> Fredrik> "you didn't say please!" message.
>>>> I like Fredrik's idea more and more.
>> The thing that bothers me about it is that the standard way you tell
> python to do something is "call a function" -- to me, a special case
> for exiting the interpreter seems out of proportion.

Just brainstorming, but -- maybe this means we should generalize the 
idea? I.e., allow other cases in which "just mentioning X" means 
"call function Y [with the following arguments]", at least at the 
interactive prompt if not more generally. If /F's idea gets 
implemented by binding to names 'exit' and 'quit' the result of some 
factory-call with "function to be called" set to sys.exit and 
"arguments for it" set to () [[as opposed to specialcasing checks of 
last commandline for equality to 'exit' &c]] then the implementation 
of the generalization would be no harder. I do find myself in 
sessions in which I want to perform some action repeatedly, and 
currently the least typing is 4 characters (x()<enter>) while this 
would reduce it to two (iPython does allow such handy shortcuts, but 
I'm often using plain interactive interpreters).
If this generalization means a complicated implementation, by all 
means let's scrap it, but if implementation is roughly as easy, it 
may be worth considering to avoid making a too-special "special 
case" (or maybe not, but brainstorming means never having to say 
you're sorry;-).
Alex