[issue1487] PEP 366 implementation

[Guido van Rossum]

Guido van Rossum added the comment:

Great, now check it in!

On Dec 2, 2007 6:01 AM, Nick Coghlan <report at bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Nick Coghlan added the comment:
>
> Posted v2 of the patch, which fixes the problem Guido noted, and
> improved the tests to make sure __package__ is being set correctly.
> There's also now an explicit test for using -m on a module inside a
> package (which proved harder to write than I expected - it isn't easy to
> fiddle with sys.path when the subprocess is running python with the -E
> flag!).
>
> Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file8852/pep_366_v2.diff
>
>
> __________________________________
> Tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1487>
> __________________________________

__________________________________
Tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1487>
__________________________________