Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
On 3/29/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Die, thread. > > Do I personally have to go into svn and reject this PEP? No, just get a procrastinating student to do it. -Brett ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Guido van Rossum wrote: > Die, thread. > > Do I personally have to go into svn and reject this PEP? After my latest channeling disaster, I was cautious about this one ;) I'll reject it now. Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Die, thread. Do I personally have to go into svn and reject this PEP? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 3/28/06, Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It might be worth instead adding an option flag to the executable that >> implies >> "from the loaded module, run __main__() with sys.argv as its argument(s)", so >> the user can get this behaviour with `python -X somemodule.py`. > > You can do "python -x somemodule" as long as somemodule.py uses the if > __name__=='__main__' convention. What does your proposal add? FWIW, you can already (Python 2.4) do something like: --- x.py - import sys if __name__ == __main__: del sys.argv[0] # Get rid of reference to ourselves mod_name = sys.argv[0] # First arg is now module to be run mod = __import__(mod_name) # Run the top level module code main = mod.__main__ # Grab the main function sys.modules["__main__"] = mod # Make that module the __main__ one try: sys.argv[0] = mod.__file__ # Try to set argv[0] properly except AttributeError: pass sys.exit(main(*sys.argv)) # Run the function - Put that in site-packages and "python -mx somemodule" will do exactly as Charles describes. Getting it to work with a filename instead of a module name would be a bit trickier, but not a lot. However, I think PEP 299 is mainly a holdover from C/C++/Java where the top level of a module is a play area for the compiler that the runtime never really gets to see. I know I found PEP 299 appealing when I first seriously started using Python, but the appeal faded over time as I got used to the idea of being able to have control logic at the top level of a module (to the point where the idea is now thoroughly *un*appealing). PEP 299's other 'use case' (trying to run another program's main function from within the current program) seems like a recipe for disaster - far better to use the subprocess module instead (since, strangely enough, application initialisation code has this tendency to assume it has sole control of the interpreter). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
OK. -1 on PEP 299 it is. On 3/28/06, Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/28/06, Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It might be worth instead adding an option flag to the executable that > > > implies > > > "from the loaded module, run __main__() with sys.argv as its > > > argument(s)", so > > > the user can get this behaviour with `python -X somemodule.py`. > > > > You can do "python -m somemodule" as long as somemodule.py uses the if > > __name__=='__main__' convention. What does your proposal add? > > Well, it's not really my proposal. I'm just suggesting the behaviour in > PEP299 could be added via a commandline option so that it doesn't introduce > backward-incompatibility. > > I don't see any particular benefit to PEP299 myself -- I'd rather just add an > entry to the style guide about standardizing the "executable stanza" and > main() function. > > Charles > -- > --- > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/ > --- > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/28/06, Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It might be worth instead adding an option flag to the executable that > > implies > > "from the loaded module, run __main__() with sys.argv as its argument(s)", > > so > > the user can get this behaviour with `python -X somemodule.py`. > > You can do "python -m somemodule" as long as somemodule.py uses the if > __name__=='__main__' convention. What does your proposal add? Well, it's not really my proposal. I'm just suggesting the behaviour in PEP299 could be added via a commandline option so that it doesn't introduce backward-incompatibility. I don't see any particular benefit to PEP299 myself -- I'd rather just add an entry to the style guide about standardizing the "executable stanza" and main() function. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/ --- ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Sorry, I meant "python -m somemodule". On 3/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/28/06, Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It might be worth instead adding an option flag to the executable that > > implies > > "from the loaded module, run __main__() with sys.argv as its argument(s)", > > so > > the user can get this behaviour with `python -X somemodule.py`. > > You can do "python -x somemodule" as long as somemodule.py uses the if > __name__=='__main__' convention. What does your proposal add? > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
On 3/28/06, Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It might be worth instead adding an option flag to the executable that implies > "from the loaded module, run __main__() with sys.argv as its argument(s)", so > the user can get this behaviour with `python -X somemodule.py`. You can do "python -x somemodule" as long as somemodule.py uses the if __name__=='__main__' convention. What does your proposal add? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/28/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > since I found myself writing "if __name__ == '__main__'" > > often these days, I wondered whether PEP 299 could be pronounced > > upon. I'm not proposing putting it into 2.5, but it should be > > relatively small a change. > > If you're asking for a quick pronouncement, it's going to be "no". > It's not worth the change (in docs, user habits, etc.) and there's > nothing particularly broken. It might be worth instead adding an option flag to the executable that implies "from the loaded module, run __main__() with sys.argv as its argument(s)", so the user can get this behaviour with `python -X somemodule.py`. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/ --- ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
On 3/28/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > since I found myself writing "if __name__ == '__main__'" > often these days, I wondered whether PEP 299 could be pronounced > upon. I'm not proposing putting it into 2.5, but it should be > relatively small a change. If you're asking for a quick pronouncement, it's going to be "no". It's not worth the change (in docs, user habits, etc.) and there's nothing particularly broken. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
At 09:22 PM 3/28/2006 +0200, Georg Brandl wrote: >Hi, > >since I found myself writing "if __name__ == '__main__'" >often these days, I wondered whether PEP 299 could be pronounced >upon. I'm not proposing putting it into 2.5, but it should be >relatively small a change. A couple of issues that the PEP doesn't address: * How can you write code that runs in multiple Python versions with this? If you use the current idiom to invoke __main__, it's going to get invoked twice. * A module that imports __main__ (using "import __main__") is going to get a TypeError unless the implementation checks that __main__ is not in fact the __main__ module. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] What about PEP 299?
Hi, since I found myself writing "if __name__ == '__main__'" often these days, I wondered whether PEP 299 could be pronounced upon. I'm not proposing putting it into 2.5, but it should be relatively small a change. Cheers, Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
