Editor for Python

[Terry Reedy]

On 1/8/2014 7:19 PM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> On 1/8/2014 3:46 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 1/8/2014 3:56 PM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2014 12:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a Python editor, as opposed to a general code editor, the Idle
>>>> editor works pretty well and has some advantages with respect to
>>>> integration with the interpreter.
>>>
>>> While true, ISTM in the past there have been 'leakage' related issues
>>> with idle -- are those no longer a concern?

Almost not, see below.

>> I have looked through most of the Idle issues on the tracker but do not
>> remember anything about 'leakage' (of memory?)
>
> Of names I think.
>
> As I recall it had something to do with both idle and the application
> running in the same namespace?  So the leakage was from within idle
> affecting the running of the script under development?

By default, Idle runs user code in a separate process from the Idle 
process itself, and has for several years. There is a command line 
option to revert to the old way (user code in the same process). Some of 
us would like to remove that option (and simplify the remaining code a 
bit). This option is kept mainly because connecting to the separate 
process via sockets sometimes fails on some systems.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy