Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
On Saturday, Apr 21st 2007 at 19:18 +0100, quoth Michael Hoffman: =Chris Lasher wrote: = Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ = hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a = shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that = shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be = executable (i.e., run from the command line). = =Personally I include it in all of them, as part of boilerplate in a =template. I'd recommend againt it. The shebang doesn't do you any good unless it's also in the presence of a file that has its executable bit set. For example, let's leave python out for a second: I have a shell script. And I also have lots of files which are not intended to be executed which are also shell scripts, but which are sucked in by the shell . or source command (which is *somewhat* analogous to python's import). Lots of these shell library scripts can't execute as standalone. The same thing is possible with pything scripts. Of course, anything that has if __name__ == __main__: in it should always have a shebang and be executable. -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Steven W. Orr wrote: On Saturday, Apr 21st 2007 at 19:18 +0100, quoth Michael Hoffman: =Chris Lasher wrote: = Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ = hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a = shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that = shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be = executable (i.e., run from the command line). = =Personally I include it in all of them, as part of boilerplate in a =template. I'd recommend againt it. The shebang doesn't do you any good unless it's also in the presence of a file that has its executable bit set. It doesn't do any bad either, so I don't understand why you would recommend against it. And the bash function I use to create new files from the template also does chmod a+x. Not to mention that I have emacs set such that things with shebangs at the top are automatically chmod a+x, so in my programming environment, having a shebang on files I create and being executable are one and the same. For example, let's leave python out for a second: I have a shell script. And I also have lots of files which are not intended to be executed which are also shell scripts, but which are sucked in by the shell . or source command (which is *somewhat* analogous to python's import). Lots of these shell library scripts can't execute as standalone. The same thing is possible with pything scripts. Of course, anything that has if __name__ == __main__: in it should always have a shebang and be executable. That's in my template as well. :) I try to write all my modules so that they can easily be adapted to run as scripts, and all my scripts so that they can easily be adapted to use as modules. This has served me well many, many times. I see no reasons to create an artificial barrier to doing this by leaving the shebang out of files where it has no ill effect. -- Michael Hoffman -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Michael Hoffman wrote: Steven W. Orr wrote: On Saturday, Apr 21st 2007 at 19:18 +0100, quoth Michael Hoffman: =Chris Lasher wrote: = Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ = hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a = shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that = shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be = executable (i.e., run from the command line). = =Personally I include it in all of them, as part of boilerplate in a =template. I'd recommend againt it. The shebang doesn't do you any good unless it's also in the presence of a file that has its executable bit set. It doesn't do any bad either, so I don't understand why you would recommend against it. And the bash function I use to create new files from the template also does chmod a+x. Not to mention that I have emacs set such that things with shebangs at the top are automatically chmod a+x, so in my programming environment, having a shebang on files I create and being executable are one and the same. For example, let's leave python out for a second: I have a shell script. And I also have lots of files which are not intended to be executed which are also shell scripts, but which are sucked in by the shell . or source command (which is *somewhat* analogous to python's import). Lots of these shell library scripts can't execute as standalone. The same thing is possible with pything scripts. Of course, anything that has if __name__ == __main__: in it should always have a shebang and be executable. That's in my template as well. :) I try to write all my modules so that they can easily be adapted to run as scripts, and all my scripts so that they can easily be adapted to use as modules. This has served me well many, many times. I see no reasons to create an artificial barrier to doing this by leaving the shebang out of files where it has no ill effect. If you ever create a module that *shouldn't be run you can always put if __name__ == __main__: print Do not run this script: it is a module for import only at the end of it. But what's the point? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
On Monday, Apr 23rd 2007 at 17:31 +0100, quoth Michael Hoffman: =Steven W. Orr wrote: = On Saturday, Apr 21st 2007 at 19:18 +0100, quoth Michael Hoffman: = = =Chris Lasher wrote: = = Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ = = hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a = = shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that = = shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be = = executable (i.e., run from the command line). = = = =Personally I include it in all of them, as part of boilerplate in a = =template. = = I'd recommend againt it. The shebang doesn't do you any good unless it's = also in the presence of a file that has its executable bit set. = =It doesn't do any bad either, so I don't understand why you would =recommend against it. = =And the bash function I use to create new files from the template also =does chmod a+x. = =Not to mention that I have emacs set such that things with shebangs at =the top are automatically chmod a+x, so in my programming environment, =having a shebang on files I create and being executable are one and the =same. = = For example, let's leave python out for a second: I have a shell script. = And I also have lots of files which are not intended to be executed which = are also shell scripts, but which are sucked in by the shell . or = source command (which is *somewhat* analogous to python's import). Lots = of these shell library scripts can't execute as standalone. The same = thing is possible with pything scripts. = = Of course, anything that has = if __name__ == __main__: = in it should always have a shebang and be executable. = =That's in my template as well. :) = =I try to write all my modules so that they can easily be adapted to run =as scripts, and all my scripts so that they can easily be adapted to use =as modules. This has served me well many, many times. I see no reasons =to create an artificial barrier to doing this by leaving the shebang out =of files where it has no ill effect. We're going too far here. Anything that ever gets executed should obviously always be executable and have a shebang. I'm trying to point out to people who create scripts in any language, shell, python, farsi, whatever, that if it's intended to be read in as some sort of library then don't make it executable and don't add a shebang. To do so is to confuse future generations. -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Jorgen Grahn a écrit : On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:46:03 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorgen Grahn a écrit : (snip) 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? Not necessarily. Just like there are cases where it makes sens to use Perl instead of Python, some things are really far simpler to do with shell scripts... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Chris Lasher wrote: Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be executable (i.e., run from the command line). Personally I include it in all of them, as part of boilerplate in a template. -- Michael Hoffman -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
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
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:24:12 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Lasher a écrit : Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? The shebang is only useful for files that you want to make directly executable on a *n*x system. They are useless on Windows, Probably (unless setup.py uses them for something meaningful there, too). But of course often you don't know that the file will always be used only on Windows, or that the Windows user won't prefer Cygwin. and not technically required to use the file as a main program -ie: you can always run it like this: $ /path/to/python filename.py You can, but sometimes it's not appropriate. 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. I realise that you took a more narrow view than I do above, so please see this as additional notes rather than critisism. It's just that I am struggling with people at work who feel program names should encode whatever language they happen to be written in, and so I am a bit oversensitive ... I'm used to having a shebang in every .py file An encoding declaration might be more useful IMHO !-) They are not mutually exclusive, if that is what you mean. I always use both. /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
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
On 13 Apr 2007 10:54:18 GMT, Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:24:12 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Lasher a écrit : Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? The shebang is only useful for files that you want to make directly executable on a *n*x system. They are useless on Windows, Probably (unless setup.py uses them for something meaningful there, too). There's another, secondary, reason to use a shebang on Python source which isn't executable: the Unix file(1) command and friends can see that it's Python code. (Of course, such files will almost always be named foo.py.) /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
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Jorgen Grahn a écrit : On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:24:12 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Lasher a écrit : Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? The shebang is only useful for files that you want to make directly executable on a *n*x system. They are useless on Windows, Probably (unless setup.py uses them for something meaningful there, too). But of course often you don't know that the file will always be used only on Windows, or that the Windows user won't prefer Cygwin. From a practical POV, I consider cygwin as a *n*x system. And FWIW, I mentionned this platform specificness because it might not be clear to anyone reading the OP. and not technically required to use the file as a main program -ie: you can always run it like this: $ /path/to/python filename.py You can, but sometimes it's not appropriate. That's another question. What I meant here is that you don't technically need the shebang and x bit to allow execution of a Python file. IOW, the shebang is only meaningfull for python files intented to be effectivly used as a program. 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 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. I realise that you took a more narrow view than I do above, I mostly tried to answer the OP question. so please see this as additional notes rather than critisism. It's just that I am struggling with people at work who feel program names should encode whatever language they happen to be written in, OMG. and so I am a bit oversensitive ... I can understand this... I'm used to having a shebang in every .py file An encoding declaration might be more useful IMHO !-) They are not mutually exclusive, if that is what you mean. Of course not. But one is always usefull (and will become more or less mandatory in a near future IIRC), while the other is either totally useless (module files) or only partially useful (script files). I always use both. Even in modules ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be executable (i.e., run from the command line). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
On Apr 11, 5:29 pm, Chris Lasher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? I'm used to having a shebang in every .py file but I recently heard someone argue that shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be executable (i.e., run from the command line). If you don't intend the module to be executable then adding a shebang line and/or setting the files execute bit are both contrary to intended use. You should therefore leave out the shebang/not set the execute bit to emphasise your intended use. During development however, intended use may differ from use when deployed. - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Chris Lasher a écrit : Should a Python module not intended to be executed have shebang/ hashbang (e.g., #!/usr/bin/env python) or not? The shebang is only useful for files that you want to make directly executable on a *n*x system. They are useless on Windows, and not technically required to use the file as a main program -ie: you can always run it like this: $ /path/to/python filename.py I'm used to having a shebang in every .py file An encoding declaration might be more useful IMHO !-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Shebang or Hashbang for modules or not?
Chris Lasher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I recently heard someone argue that shebangs were only appropriate for Python code intended to be executable (i.e., run from the command line). Since that's the purpose of putting in a shebang line, that's what I'd argue also; specifically: - Modules intended primarily for import should be named 'foo.py' and have no shebang line. This doesn't preclude having an 'if __name__ == __main__:' block, and running the module as 'python ./foo.py' for whatever reason. - Modules intended primarily for running as a command should have a shebang line and an 'if __name__ == __main__:' block, and be named according to the conventions of the OS for naming command programs; on *nix, this means naming the file 'foo'. This doesn't preclude importing the module (e.g. for unit testing), though it is a little more convoluted than a simple 'import' statement. -- \ Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I | `\guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis. -- Jack | _o__) Handey | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
