On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 23:43 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> The ‘if __name__…’ idiom makes one function special. Hm... So if the
> module has that, will that main() still be called with your proposal? I.e.,
> is __name__ still ‘__main__’?
>
Perhaps not. If __name__ were still '__main__' and calling the function
implied importing the module, then anything in `if __name__ == '__main__'`
would still get run. I think that would be inconvenient for folks.
I think __name__ should be the module name in the context of the module,
and the function name in the context of the function, in this case.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 20:32 Michael Smith <mich...@smith-li.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 23:12 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:06 PM Michael Smith <mich...@smith-li.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:19 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I think it would be a tad more convincing if there was a way to pass
>>>> arguments too (even if just a list of strings). At the very least extra
>>>> arguments should end up in sys.argv[1:].
>>>>
>>>> Could python -m 'module:thunk' have exactly the same behavior with
>>>> respect to arguments as `python3.8 -m module` does today?
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> $ cat bar.py
>>>> import pprint, sys
>>>>
>>>> def thunk():
>>>> pprint.pprint(sys.argv)
>>>>
>>>> if __name__ == "__main__":
>>>> thunk()
>>>>
>>>> $ python3.8 -m bar -- -1 --two --three=3
>>>> ['/Users/michael/bar.py', '--', '-1', '--two', '--three=3']
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> So then with the same bar.py, `python -m bar:thunk -- -2 --three
>>>> --four=4` would print `['/Users/michael/bar.py', '--', '-1', '--two',
>>>> '--three=3']`. I like this better than my previous suggestion to
>>>> shorthand python -c.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually it should print the same except for sys.argv[0]. (We could
>>> argue about what sys.argv[0] should be.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> > Then again, presumably the function must be specially crafted for
>>>> this usage. Why can't you just specially craft a module's main()?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "specially crafted", other than
>>>> the function only needs not require any formal parameters. It doesn't
>>>> need to be special-er than that. It can handle args via sys.argv, as
>>>> you suggested. Most of the `main` functions I write today are just
>>>> like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, so this is just a way to choose an alternative main() function.
>>>
>>
>> Am I missing something important here? What's special about naming a
>> function "main"? Don't you still have to do something else to invoke it
>> from the cli, such as calling it expressly in the module or pointing
>> console entry points to it?
>>
>> ```
>> $ echo 'def main(): print("hi")' > xyz.py
>> $ python -m xyz
>> <no output>
>> $
>> ```
>>
>> I'm kind of meh at this point, I'll leave it to the usual crowd. :-)
>>>
>>
>> I appreciate the engagement you've given this already. :)
>>
>> --
>>> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
>>> *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)*
>>> <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
>>>
>> --
> --Guido (mobile)
>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/LMPM7425EEX2NAN6EDONFYZ3QEJCBEAD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
