RetroSearch Browse

Fri Oct 15 06:25:14 CEST 2004 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049426.html

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> Perhaps this means that -m is premature?  I personally would rather wait
> for 2.5 if it means we get a nice, future-proof "main" convention out of
> the deal.  While -m would not then be "backward compatible" with existing
> scripts, people could start changing scripts to match the convention as
> soon as there was an accepted PEP.

But to me -m option and __main__() conventions seem like orthogonal
features...

Even if  current __name__=="__main__" blocks get replaced by a magic
__main__() function, you would still benefit from -m cmd line option

Or is there some hidden dependency?

Ilya

>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ilya%40bluefir.net
>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049426.html below:

[Python-Dev] Magic main functions