Is it bad practise to write __all__ like that

[Ben Finney]

Karim <karim.liateni at free.fr> writes:

> Hello,
>
> __all__ = 'api db input output tcl'.split()
>
> or
>
> __all__ = """
>                api
>                db
>                input
>                output
>                tcl
>                """.split()

Maybe this:

    __all__ = [x.__name__ for x in [
        api,
        db,
        input,
        output,
        tcl,
        ]]

presuming these are all objects with an accurate ‘__name__’ attribute.

I'm starting to yearn for the ability in Python to get a string
representation of a name itself, by using the name and not writing it as
a string literal. That would make the above more robust.

But really, this is all obfuscatory. Why not:

    __all__ = [
        'api',
        'db',
        'input',
        'output',
        'tcl',
        ]

It's clear and explicit and really not difficult to type or maintain.

-- 
 \           “I do not believe in forgiveness as it is preached by the |
  `\        church. We do not need the forgiveness of God, but of each |
_o__)                    other and of ourselves.” —Robert G. Ingersoll |
Ben Finney