[Python-ideas] start, test, init

[Ron Adam]

On 12/02/2013 06:35 AM, spir wrote:
>>
>> As for the testing case... I'd like for python to have a -t option that only
>> sets a global name __test__ to True.  Then that covers most of your use
>> cases
>> without adding a whole lot.  Sometimes less is more.
>>
>>     if __test__:
>>         test()
>>     elif __name__ == '__main__':
>>         main()
>>
>> That's just one possible combination of using __test__ and __name__.
>
> That is all right, in my view; except maybe the point on flexibility (the
> solution of std func names is highly flexible). However, this does not
> address 2 related issues:
> * Why has the idiom "(el)if __name__ == '__main__':" has to be that
> obscure? and involve unnecessary knwoledge of Python arcanes (for a newcomer)


I don't see it as obscure or arcane to compare a string to variable which 
bound to a string.  It's a very common and basic operation.

The only extra knowledge you need is to know that the __name__ attribute is 
set to "__main__" in the main module.  And that enables us to check if 
"this" is the main module in a direct way.

 >>> dir()
['__builtins__', '__doc__', '__loader__', '__name__', '__package__']
 >>> __name__
'__main__'
 >>> __name__ == '__main__'
True

The difference between python and compiled languages that must use 
functions to get things started, is that python is already executing the 
code, so it a matter of avoiding some parts at different times.

 > * Having a std (albeit not required) high-level software structure is a net
 > gain for the community of Python programmers (instead of everyone doing
 > their own way... when they do).

Most beginner books on python explain objects and name binding fairly 
early.  Knowing a module is also an object and has a __name__ attribute is 
something a python programmer should learn very early.  It helps them learn 
and understand how everything works in a more direct way. So rather than 
adding ... "You been doing this for a while, but many people do this other 
way ... ".  So it would need to be explained anyway.

Cheers,
    Ron