I'm not in love with the *spelling* of " if __name__=='__main__': ", but I very frequently use the overall pattern. Much--or even most--of the time when I write a module, I like to allow it to either do a minimal case of its basic functionality and/or have the module run some basic unit tests as a quick check against breakage. So in contrast to Eric Snow, I try *to* make my files both scripts and modules. I know this isn't the only possible approach, but I don't think it's bad or uncommon. On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@gmail.com>wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org> wrote:
It'd be nice to formalize a way to get rid of the __name__ == '__main__' idiom as well in the long long run. Sure everyone's editor types that for them now but it's still a wart. Anyways, digressing... ;)
This has come up before and is the subject of several PEPS. [1][2] The current idiom doesn't bother me too much as I try not to have files that are both scripts and modules. However, Python doesn't make the distinction all that clear nor does it do much to encourage people to keep the two separate. I'd prefer improvements in both those instead, but haven't had the time for any concrete proposal.
FWIW, aside from the idiom there are other complications that arise from a module that also gets loaded in __main__ (run as a script). See PEP 395 [3].
-erc
[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0299/ [2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3122/ [3] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0395/ (sort of related) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
-- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.