I have also often wondered if there could be something more turn-key for that bit at the bottom.
Here is a suggestion I'll throw into the ring: sys.run_main() It goes at the bottom of the file, and basically just lets the programmer express what they want to happen. Easy to explain. The appropriate logic is buried in run_main(), checking if we're in the __main__ situation, and looking for a main() in the file and running it and probably some corner cases I haven't thought of. I figure sys is the right module, having argv and all that. I would prefer to not have the programmer need to resort to underbar __main()__ type naming to accomplish a thing that is so ordinary. If there were a syntax for this, visualize it showing up in the first day of Python class, at the bottom of hello.py or whatever. You want something easy to explain, not requiring a ton of attention for solving something that is actually quite routine. I don't mind making the name 'main' special, but you could have an option to specify a different function or make it more agnostic about the name in some other way. Best, Nick On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 12:36 PM Jonathan Crall <erote...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was curious if / what sort of proposals have been considered for > simplifying the pattern: > > ``` > def main(): > ... > > if __name__ == "__main__": > main() > ``` > > I imagine this topic must have come up before, so I'd be interested in any > relevant history. > > But unless I'm missing something, it seems like adding some easier > alternative to this cumbersome entrypoint syntax would be worth considering. > > My motivation for writing this suggestion is in an attempt to stop a > common anti-pattern, where instead of defining a `main` function (or a > function by any other name) an simply calling that by adding the above two > lines, a lot of Python users I work with will just start dumping their > logic into the global scope of the module. > > Needless to say, this can have consequences. If there was some default > builtin, let's call it `__main__` for now (open to suggestions), that took > a function as an argument and conditionally executed it if `__name__ == > "__main__"` in the caller's scope, that would allow us to simplify the > above boilerplate to a single line with no extra indentation: > > ``` > def main(): > ... > > __main__(main) > ``` > > In addition to being simpler, it would allow users to avoid the trap of > adding logic that impacts the global scope. It would also save me some > keystrokes, which I'm always grateful for. > > Furthermore, it could be used as a decorator (and the use-case wouldn't be > unreasonable!), and we all know how much new Python users love decorators > when they find out about them. > > ``` > @__main__ > def main(): > ... > ``` > > Maybe having such a builtin would discourage globals and help new users > get the use-decorators-everywhere bug out of their system. > > -- > -Dr. Jon Crall (him) > _______________________________________________ > 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/FKQS2NEI5RQMTX53N77KQQDFZ6HZONXU/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/KXR6ABMG3CYLSDDDPW6WPZTHTMKCDJTG/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
