Géry <gery.o...@gmail.com> added the comment: Thanks for your extended review Steven.
> You state that these two phrases are from the runpy documentation: > > * "run from the module namespace" > * "run from the file system" > > but neither of those phrases appear in the runpy documentation here: > > https://docs.python.org/3/library/runpy.html I agree. Actually the first paragraph of the page uses the phrases: - "located using the module namespace"; - "located using the file system", so instead of saying: - "run a module located using the module namespace" to mean "python <file> - "run a module located using the file system" to mean "python -m <module>", I simplified to: - "run from the module namespace" - "run from the file system" But since the terminology is misleading I have used these phrases instead: - `python`: "module initialized from an interactive prompt"; - `python < <file>`: "module initialized from standard input"; - `python <file>`: "module initialized from a file argument"; - `python -c <code>`: "module initialized from a `-c` argument"; - `python -m <module>`: "module initialized from a `-m` argument"; - `import <module>`: "module initialized from an import statement". What the documentation tries to explain is that in all of these cases except the last one, code is executed in the __main__ module. I have updated the PR. ---- > The PR changes the term "scope" to "environment", but I think that is wrong. > An environment is potentially greater than a scope. `__main__` is a module > namespace, hence a scope. The environment includes things outside of that > scope, such as the builtins, environment variables, the current working > directory, the python path, etc. We don't talk about modules being an > environment, but as making up a scope. I disagree. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(computer_science)), the term "scope" is the part of a program where a name binding is valid, while the term "environment" (synonym of "context") is the set of name bindings that are valid within a part of a program. Therefore "scope" is a property of a name binding (a name binding has a scope), and "environment" is a property of a part of a program (a part of a program has an environment). And the term "environment" is actually already used in the original title and synopsis of the document (and it is correct): > :mod:`__main__` --- Top-level script environment > .. module:: __main__ > :synopsis: The environment where the top-level script is run. So my change to the body fixes the inconsistent and incorrect usage of "scope": - ``'__main__'`` is the name of the scope in which top-level code executes. + ``'__main__'`` is the name of the environment where top-level code is run. - A module can discover whether or not it is running in the main scope + A module can discover whether or not it is running in the main environment ---- > Placing the comment above the `if`, where it will apply to the entire `if` > statement, is incorrect. I agree. Sometimes you see comments before if statements but they usually don't start with "execute". I have updated the PR. ---- > The second problem is that when running a module with -m it *is* imported. > PEP 338 is clear about this: I agree. I should have said "when the module is not initialized from an import statement". But note that even before my change the original document already used the phrase "not imported": - executing code in a module when it is run as a script or with ``python - -m`` but not when it is imported:: + executing code in a module when it is not imported:: - # execute only if run as a script + # Execute only if the module is not imported. I have updated the PR. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39452> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
