Skip to content

bpo-13474 Add -m reference in context of code execution #6901

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

bpo-13474 Add -m reference in context of code execution #6901

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

elusivenode
Copy link

@elusivenode elusivenode commented May 16, 2018 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

@elusivenode elusivenode changed the title BPO-13474 Add -m reference in context of code execution bpo-13474 Add -m reference in context of code execution May 16, 2018
@ncoghlan ncoghlan self-assigned this May 17, 2018
@matrixise matrixise added the docs Documentation in the Doc dir label May 15, 2019
@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

@ncoghlan, ping

ncoghlan
ncoghlan requested changes Sep 11, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ncoghlan ncoghlan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, but needs a markup fix (I'm on my phone, or I'd fix it directly)

Doc/reference/executionmodel.rst
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ The following are blocks: a module, a function body, and a class definition.
Each command typed interactively is a block. A script file (a file given as
standard input to the interpreter or specified as a command line argument to the
interpreter) is a code block. A script command (a command specified on the
interpreter command line with the '**-c**' option) is a code block. The string
interpreter command line with the '**-c**' option) is a code block. A module run as a top level script (as module `__main__`) from the command line using a '**-m**' argument is also a code block. The string
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Double backticks on the markup

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

(I am puzzled as to why me-of-a-year-ago didn't just fix that. Sorry for the delay...)

@JulienPalard JulienPalard mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2019
Merged
@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

Re-opened the PR here: #16045
as this one is from an deleted fork and conflicting, it should be easier.

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @JulienPalard

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ncoghlan ncoghlan ncoghlan requested changes

Assignees

@ncoghlan ncoghlan

Labels
awaiting changes docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@elusivenode @JulienPalard @bedevere-bot @ncoghlan @matrixise @the-knights-who-say-ni