En Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:15:15 -0300, Rami Chowdhury
<rami.chowdh...@gmail.com> escribió:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:46:09 -0700, Buck <workithar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks. I think we're getting closer to the core of this.
To restate my problem more simply:
My core goal is to have my scripts in some sort of organization better
than a single directory, and still have plenty of re-use between them.
The only way I can see to implement this is to have 10+ lines of
unintelligible hard-coded boilerplate in every runnable script.
That doesn't seem reasonable or pythonic.
If there's a standard directory you expect them to be dropped into by
your users (e.g. $HOME/scripts) then surely you could do something like:
import mypathmunge
at the top of every script, and then have a mypathmunge.py in
site-packages that goes:
# mypathmunge.py
import sys, os
sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(os.getenv('HOME'), 'scripts'))
Since Python 2.6 and up, you don't even need that. There exists a per-user
site directory (~/.local/lib/python2.6/site-packages on Linux; under
%APPDATA% on Windows) that is prepended to sys.path automatically; .pth
files found there are honored too (see PEP 370 [1]).
So there is no need to set the PYTHONPATH variable, nor alter the standard
site-packages directory, nor play tricks with sys.path - just install the
modules/packages inside the user site directory (or any other directory
named in a .pth file found there).
[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0370/
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
