On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:46:03 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jorgen Grahn a écrit : ... >> If you distribute a >> Python program to Unix users in that form, they may not want to know >> or care which language it's written in. Especially if you decide, a >> few releases later, that you want to switch to Perl or something. > > <troll> > No one in it's own mind would decide to switch from Python to Perl !-) > </troll>
I was trolling a bit, too ;-) Actually, it made sense in my case. It was a typical Perl task -- a filter regex-parsing a huge (a few hundred megabytes) text file. Rewriting it in Perl for speed was faster and more readable than rewriting it in Python for speed. > More seriously, and as far as I'm concerned, when I want to make a > python script (by opposition to a python 'module') available as a unix > command, I either use a symlink or a shell script calling the python > script. A symlink yes, but a shell script? Wouldn't it be easier to write a one-liner (well, two-liner) Python script in that case? >>>>I'm used to having a >>>>shebang in every .py file >>> >>>An encoding declaration might be more useful IMHO !-) ... >> I always use both. > > Even in modules ????? Yes, for a few reasons: - file(1) can tell it's Python source - I tend to leave unit tests in my modules - I just started doing that when I first tried Python; it's part of my mental boilerplate I don't claim they are good reasons. And since I strongly dislike setting the execute bit on things that aren't executable, I should probably stop using the shebang everywhere, too ... /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
