On Tuesday 23 December 2003 12:09 pm, Dmitry Vasiliev wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: > >>The main idea is to treating package as a program and run package > >>initialization code from command line. The advantage is zipping all > >>program modules in one zip archive and running the program from command > >>line without unzipping it, like Java's jar's. But this idea need more > >>thoughts however... > > > > Couldn't you use: > > python -c "import package_name" > > for this purpose even today? > > python -c "import sys; sys.path.insert(0, 'module.zip'); import module" > > Seems ugly... :) Well, if the zipfile isn't on your sys.path already, then you'd have to insert it explicitly anyway -- surely, even if a switch "-p" to mean import existed, you wouldn't want it to force python to snoop into EVERY zipfile around?! PYTHONPATH=module.zip python -c "import module" is one way you might express "insert into path and import" using a decent shell (cygwin's bash on Windows, for example). The proposed: PYTHONPATH=module.zip python -p module doesn't appear to offer a _major_ enhancement, just a very minor one, in my personal opinion. One potential advantage of -p might be to let it be present _together_ with one -c (even better might be to allow multiple -c, actually). If you want to run a "while foo.bep(): foo.zlup()" you can do it today only with a shell that allows easy input of one multiline argument. But again it seems a rather marginal issue to me, personally. Alex
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4