Re: no more print statements in SConscripts?
Tim Jenness <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On May 25, 2016, at 14:38, Bill Deegan <bill-cJFiu+DHMVC5azolltMz9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Tim, > > Here's the implementation: > https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/src/1e0827962a2bb114041df47d44be2384c86f3918/src/engine/SCons/Script/SConscript.py?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default#SConscript.py-251 <https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/src/1e0827962a2bb114041df47d44be2384c86f3918/src/engine/SCons/Script/SConscript.py?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default#SConscript.py-251> > > Basically it exec()'s the SConscript as follows: > <> exec(compile(_file_.read(), _file_.name, 'exec'), > <> call_stack[-1].globals) > > So given that print_function() is already imported from __future__ at that point I don't think we can do a per SConscript exclusion? > Right. It compiles a string so print_function is in effect. I think what I’d do is ban the use of print in that file so that the print_function directive is not active. There are only two prints in there so I’d move those two routines to a different file or provide a utility print routine from somewhere else that those functions use. — Tim Jenness _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev