[IPython-dev] msg spec
Wed Apr 18 00:53:23 CDT 2012
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:19 PM, MinRK <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I'm fine leaving it in the payload system. Having it in the actual reply
> does make some sense. Isn't it fairly clear the point immediately prior to
> execution? I don't know where precisely this is
Sorry, I can't quite understand if in the above you're voting for the
payload system or for 'fixing' it as it was originally intended...
> Another msg spec failure, along my way:
> We do not actually support the detail_level key in the object_info messages
> (on either end), so presumably we are only doing detail_level=0. Also the
> spec doc suggests the only options are 1 and 2, but the default is in fact
> 0, and this is the only one we currently expose.
> I presume just adding the arg to KM.object_info, and passing it to
> inspector.info in Kernel.object_info_request is all that we need to do.
Yes, that's right. So far we've only used the info requests with
basic info, b/c 'x??' executes via a second codepath. But if we
wanted for example to improve the calltips with a '+' button that
would fill in with the equivalent of '??', we'd need to support the
full value range. So yes, let's fix this one...
More information about the IPython-dev