bpo-44603: Exit the interpreter if the user types "exit" #27096
Conversation
pablogsal
force-pushed
the
bpo-44603
branch
3 times, most recently
from
dc82775 to
f7d1146
Compare
|
LGTM, I suggest reopening this (button clicked). From a testing perspective, we just want to make sure it doesn't interfere with with what uber interactive console add-on's like IPython already implement that do this. |
|
From a PR standpoint I think the thing we need was covered in your bug comment: "if there's a single AST node that is a name and the name is "exit" or "quit", the REPL inspects locals and globals to see if the object referred to is a Quitter, and if so it exits" We should be able to add unittest coverage for this in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the purpose of the review, I will be neutral on the proposal. But I do notice that the special behavior is limited to entering exactly 'quit\n' or 'exit\n'. This is stricter than current ^Z behavior.
>>> a^Z
File "<stdin>", line 1
a→
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> ^Zb
f:\dev\3x>
Exiting instead of also raising SyntaxError may be a bug.
Changes:
- The reprs of both functions should be changed to eliminate the ()s.
- The code class imitating the REPL should imitate this also. If no syntax error, run same tests on result as ast.parse. But do in a separate function, as here, so subclass can easily disable with def is_exit(code): return False.
|
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
| } | ||
| return PyUnicode_CompareWithASCIIString(expr->v.Name.id, "exit") == 0 || | ||
| PyUnicode_CompareWithASCIIString(expr->v.Name.id, "quit") == 0; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tests of the object associated with the names is needed to not turn them into semi-keywords, as in the the following.
>>> exit = 3
>>> exit
f:\dev\3x>
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
|
@pablogsal this PR looks great, any chance you will continue working on it? :) |
There is still no agreement on the solution. Furthermore we are working on a new REPL for CPython that won't need this hack so probably that's the better rule if we decide to go that way |
|
Superseded by the work in #111201 |
https://bugs.python.org/issue44603