Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:25 AM Alex Hall alex.moj...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > And in all fairness, all good ideas already came
> > to somebody else years
> > ago. There's
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 06:45:01AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:14 AM Mike Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2020-05-28 18:02, Greg Ewing wrote:
> > >> If __name__ == '__main__':
> > >> sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
> > >
> > > It's not clear that exiting with the
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:14 AM Mike Miller wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-05-28 18:02, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >> If __name__ == '__main__':
> >> sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
> >
> > It's not clear that exiting with the return value of main() is
> > the most Pythonic thing to do -- it's more of a C idiom
On 2020-05-28 18:02, Greg Ewing wrote:
If __name__ == '__main__':
sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
It's not clear that exiting with the return value of main() is
the most Pythonic thing to do -- it's more of a C idiom that
If you'd like a script to be uhh, highly-scriptable, returning one
I agree with Paul's sentiment. We do not need to bless just one way of
writing scripts. Code review or organization style guides, sure. But not at
language level.
I also write scripts with no explicit __main__. But I rarely name them as
.py. In the style of Unix commands, they have no extension,
Also, I routinely write scripts that have no `if __name__ ==
'__main__'` line at all, they just run - no-one should ever import
them, so it makes no difference. And I exit (in multiple places) using
`raise SystemExit("reason")`.
My point being that yes, there are *lots* of ways of writing Python
I'm going to note here that it is perfectly reasonable to use Python as a
"scripting language" -- to, you know, write scripts.
And when I'm writing scripts, I make heavy use of the global namespace :-)
Granted, if it's really a quick and dirty script, I'll not bother with if
__name__ ==
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:43 PM Jonathan Goble wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:03 PM Greg Ewing
> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/05/20 8:05 am, tritium-l...@sdamon.com wrote:
>>
>> > People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
>> >
>> > If __name__ == '__main__':
>> >
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:03 PM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> On 29/05/20 8:05 am, tritium-l...@sdamon.com wrote:
>
> > People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
> >
> > If __name__ == '__main__':
> > sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
>
> It's not clear that exiting with the return value
On 05/28/2020 01:05 PM, tritium-l...@sdamon.com wrote:
People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
If __name__ == '__main__':
sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
I have never written an entry point that looks like that.
--
~Ethan~
___
On 29/05/20 8:05 am, tritium-l...@sdamon.com wrote:
People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
If __name__ == '__main__':
sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
It's not clear that exiting with the return value of main() is
the most Pythonic thing to do -- it's more of a C idiom
On 28/05/2020 21:05, tritium-l...@sdamon.com wrote:
People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
If __name__ == '__main__':
sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
Mostly I don't write main entry points at all. If I do the dance, it's
more likely to be:
if __name__ == '__main__':
Hello,
On Thu, 28 May 2020 16:05:52 -0400
wrote:
[]
> People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
>
> If __name__ == '__main__':
> sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
Yes, most of the time, I don't emulate C main function, so I write it
as:
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:52 PM Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 05:33:57 +1000
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > People can already put all their main logic into a function. If you
> > want to unit-test your main function, that's the best way to do it.
>
Yes, and I want to make it easy,
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:54 AM wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Angelico
> >
> > People can already put all their main logic into a function. If you want
> to unit-
> > test your main function, that's the best way to do it.
> > The trouble is, how much goes into main()
(Apologies to Chris, reply vs. replay all error on my part)
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Angelico
>
> People can already put all their main logic into a function. If you want
to unit-
> test your main function, that's the best way to do it.
> The trouble is, how much goes into
Hello,
On Fri, 29 May 2020 05:33:57 +1000
Chris Angelico wrote:
[]
> People can already put all their main logic into a function. If you
> want to unit-test your main function, that's the best way to do it.
> The trouble is, how much goes into main() and how much into if
> __name__ ==
On Thu, May 28, 2020, 3:06 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> There aren't multiple entry points, though. There would be multiple
> blocks of code that are skipped if the module is imported, but
> executed if it's run as a script. Remember, Python code is NOT
> declarative. That 'def' statement is an
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:25 AM Alex Hall wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>>
>> And in all fairness, all good ideas already came to somebody else years
>> ago. There's https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0299/ , successfully
>> rejected yet back in 2002. (So,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> And in all fairness, all good ideas already came to somebody else years
> ago. There's https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0299/ , successfully
> rejected yet back in 2002. (So, feel free to use it in your own
> environment/Python
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:32 AM David Mertz wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020, 12:17 PM wrote:
>>
>> The OP is proposing as a possibility: "we could require user to have only
>> one if __name__ == '__main__':". In that case, functionality will be
>> reduced, won't it?
>
>
> I don't support the
Cool !!
But it disappointed that this proposal was reject (
___
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
On Thu, May 28, 2020, 12:17 PM wrote:
> The OP is proposing as a possibility: "we could require user to have only
> one if __name__ == '__main__':". In that case, functionality will be
> reduced, won't it?
>
I don't support the proposal. However, I've also never written a script
with multiple
Artemis wrote:
> > So your proposal is reducing features instead of
> > expanding them.
> > Surely, the __name__ variable would remain, so if people needed a more
> > powerful way of doing it they could use that? But then, we introduce
> > multiple ways of
> > doing the same thing...
> >
The OP
Hello,
On Thu, 28 May 2020 09:06:36 -
redrad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In Python we often use the following syntax to call the main logic of
> script when it was ran: ```python
> def main():
> pass # whatever should be done for `python ./script.py`
>
> if __name__ ==
> So your proposal is reducing features instead of expanding them.
Surely, the `__name__` variable would remain, so if people needed a more
powerful way of doing it they could use that? But then, we introduce multiple
ways of doing the same thing...
redradist＠gmail.com wrote:
> Hi all,
> In Python we often use the following syntax to call the main logic of script
> when it
> was ran:
> def main():
> pass # whatever should be done for `python ./script.py`
>
> if __name__ == '__main__':
> main()
>
> Maybe it is a time to introduce
While is possible to use `if __name__ == '__main__':` several times in the
same script, your proposed magic function `def __main__()` cannot be
redefined. Not to speak about lexical scope differences between one
approach and the other.
So your proposal is reducing features instead of expanding
28 matches
Mail list logo
