On 10 June 2014 12:23, Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. It hampers interactive mode - instead of short and easy to type
> execfile("file.py") one needs to use exec(open("file.py").read()). I'm
> sure that's not going to bother a lot of people - after all, the
> easiest way to execute a Python file is to drop back to shell and
> restart python with file name, using all wonders of tab completion. But
> now imagine that Python interpreter runs on bare hardware, and its REPL
> is the only shell. That's exactly what we have with MicroPython's
> Cortex-M port. But it's not really MicroPython-specific, there's
> CPython port to baremetal either - http://www.pycorn.org/ .
https://docs.python.org/3/library/runpy.html#runpy.run_path
import runpy
file_globals = runpy.run_path("file.py")
The standard implementation of run_path reads the whole file into
memory, but MicroPython would be free to optimise that and do
statement by statement execution instead (while that will pose some
challenges in terms of handling encoding cookies, future imports, etc
correctly, it's certainly feasible).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
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