RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jun 27 18:32:22 CEST 2006 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-June/066628.html

Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> Actually, maybe we *do* want to, for this usage.
>
> Note that until Python 2.5, it was not possible to do "python -m
> nested.module", so this change merely prevents *existing* modules from
> being run this way -- when they could not have been before!
>
> So, such modules would require a minor change to run under -m.  Is
> this
> actually a problem, or is it a new feature?

This is where I wonder why the "def __main__()" PEP was rejected in the
first place. It would have solved this problem as well.
-- 
Giovanni Bajo

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-June/066628.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 328 and PEP 338, redux