"Jim Jewett" <jimjjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/21/07, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
On 4/21/07, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson@uci.edu> wrote:
After reading other posts in the thread, I'm going to put my support into the sys.main variant. It has all of the benefits of the builtin __name__ == __main__, with none of the drawbacks (no builtin!), and only a slight annoyance of 'import sys', which is more or less free.
Yeah, I am starting to like it as well. Steven and Jim, what do you think?
Better than adding a builtin.
I'm not sure I like the idea of another semi-random object in sys either, though.
(1) One of the motivations was importing. It looks like __file__ already has sufficient information. I understand that relying on it (or on __package__?) seems a bit hacky, but is it really worse than adding something?
(2) Is there a reason the main module can't appear in sys.modules twice, once under the alias "__main__"?
While it is unlikely, there may be cleanup issues when the process is ending.
# Equivalent to today if __name__ == sys.modules["__main__"].__name__:
# Better than today if __name__ is sys.modules["__main__"].__name__:
The above two should be equivalent unless the importer has a bad habit.
# What I would like (pending PEP I hope to write tonight) if __this_module__ is sys.modules["__main__"]:
While I would also very much like the ability to access *this module*, I don't believe that this necessarily precludes the use of a proper package.module naming scheme for all __name__ values. - Josiah