I wrote: > Indeed! And I'd be quite content with such a solution, since I > consider scripts and modules to be distinct. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > Except that modules can often be executed as scripts... Rest assured, I'm well aware of the history, and don't seriously expect the situation to change. Not all of us consider modules and scripts synonymous; I've considered them distinct for quite some time. The problem with a script being importable as a module, masking the intended module, is simply a symptom of this misfeature that has been identified as commonly biting newcomers. Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > but ... isn't the whole point of 'python -m' to make scripts and modules _not_ be distinct? That was never how I understood the intention. The point was to make modules that could be used as scripts easier to use as scripts. There have been proposals for main-functions in modules that would be invoked as a default entry point; those make -m more attractive. I'd be more likely to use -m if those were part of the package. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
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