On Tuesday 23 December 2003 12:09 pm, Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
The main idea is to treating package as a program and run package initialization code from command line. The advantage is zipping all program modules in one zip archive and running the program from command line without unzipping it, like Java's jar's. But this idea need more thoughts however...
Couldn't you use: python -c "import package_name" for this purpose even today?
python -c "import sys; sys.path.insert(0, 'module.zip'); import module"
Seems ugly... :)
Well, if the zipfile isn't on your sys.path already, then you'd have to insert it explicitly anyway -- surely, even if a switch "-p" to mean import existed, you wouldn't want it to force python to snoop into EVERY zipfile around?! PYTHONPATH=module.zip python -c "import module" is one way you might express "insert into path and import" using a decent shell (cygwin's bash on Windows, for example). The proposed: PYTHONPATH=module.zip python -p module doesn't appear to offer a _major_ enhancement, just a very minor one, in my personal opinion. One potential advantage of -p might be to let it be present _together_ with one -c (even better might be to allow multiple -c, actually). If you want to run a "while foo.bep(): foo.zlup()" you can do it today only with a shell that allows easy input of one multiline argument. But again it seems a rather marginal issue to me, personally. Alex