Changing python process name (or argv)
mike-list at wakerly.com
Thu Jun 5 01:15:37 CEST 2003
Hi Michael and Skip,
Thanks for the responses!
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 08:04 am, Michael Chermside wrote:
> Mike writes:
> > I think the functionality is desirable for some
> > (at least on Unix python), and this simple trick hardly warrants an extra
> > module if it is indeed acceptable in the python world.
> Mike, you have it exactly backwards. This simple trick hardly
> warrents inclusion in core Python when it can be implemented
> by an extra module. The fact that it _is_ a simple trick is
> a good reason to keep it as a module. The fact that it might
> not be portable to all operating systems is another good
> reason. Don't be afraid to use modules... that's what they're
Aiyee, I was worried about this; it is what my 'acceptable in the python
world' qualifier was for. It may be a simple trick, or it may be expected
functionality (if uncommon). Yes, I am all for using modules where
appropriate; not everybody's hack needs to be part of python (see Perl..),
etc.. I've only just discovered this trick and couldn't find much discussion
on whether or not it is considered a kludge.
(An 'Argv_write' module just seemed a bit inelegant to my eyes; perhaps I
underestimate the rarity of its usefulness, but [as in my original problem],
I see few other ways to 'hide python' from unintelligent interfaces.)
So, it would seem that rewriting argv is indeed not a necessary standard
feature, since, according to Skip:
> In addition, the idea was rejected by Guido in the past (I remember because
> I proposed it). I doubt he's changed his mind on the topic in the past few
I'll have to do some homework and find that thread; maybe it will reveal why
argv rewriting is good/bad/standard/uncommon.
More information about the Python-list