Hello,
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:36:02 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 12:23, Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@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")
Thanks, it's the most productive response surely. So, at least there's
alternative to removed execfile(). Unfortunately, I don't think it's
good alternative to execfile() in all respects. It clearly provides API
for that functionality, but is that solution of least surprise and is
it actually known by users at all (to be useful for them)?
Googling for "execfile python 3", top 3 hits I see are stackoverflow
questions, *none* of which mentions runpy. So, people either don't
consider it viable alternative to execfile, or don't know about it at
all (my guess it's the latter).
Like with previous discussion, its meaning goes beyond just Python
realm - there's competition all around. And internets bring funny
examples, like for example http://www.red-lang.org/p/contributions.html
(scroll down to diagram, or here's direct link:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xhOP35Dm99w/UuXFKgY2dlI/AAAAAAAAAGA/YQu98_pPDjw/s1600/reichart-abstraction-diagram.png)
So, didn't you know that Ruby can be used for OS-level development, and
Python can't? Or that JavaScript DSL capabilities are better than
Python's (that's taking into account that JavaScript DSL capabilities
are represented by JSON, whose creators were so arrogant as to disallow
even usage of comments in it).
So, now suppose there's a discussion of how good different languages are
for interactive usage (out of the box apparently). It would be a little
hard to defend claim that Python is *excellent* interactive language,
if its latest series got -1 on that scale, by removing feature which
may be indispensable at times. Knowing that, one subconsciously may
start to wonder if Ruby or JavaScript are doing it (in wide sense)
better than Python.
--
Best regards,
Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
