On Jan 11, 2020, at 14:09, Soni L. <fakedme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > why are we allowed to have fancy `python /path/to/foo.py` but not fancy > `python -m /path/to/foo`?
There’s nothing fancy about the first one. It’s a path, and it’s up to your OS what a path means. It’s exactly the same as passing a path to sh or cmd or ffmpeg or any other tool. The argument to -m is also not fancy, because it’s not a path at all, it’s a module name. Which means Python searches the PYTHONPATH for a module with that name. What you’re asking for is something that’s a path up to some point (even though your shell can’t tell) and then switches to being a module name at some unspecified point in the middle. For your trivial case it’s obvious where you want that point to be, but what’s the rule that handles non-trivial cases that aren’t obvious? And, even if there is a rule that’s easily understandable and unambiguous (to humans, to Python, to shell completers, etc.), why is that better than having separate arguments for the path and the module name in the first place? > if `python` was capable of detecting modules and automatically deciding > package roots, none of this would even be an argument and I'd just use > `python /path/to/module/submodule/__main__.py` (with "module" having an > __init__.py) and be done with it. but python can't do that because backwards > compatibility and whatnot. It’s nothing to do with backward compatibility. Any directory is a package. (There are also packages that aren’t even directories, but ignore that extra complexity here.) If it doesn’t have an __init__.py, it’s a namespace package, which is still a package. That same path is just as validly interpreted five different ways, from path.to.module.submodule.__main__ in directory / to __main__ in directory /path/to/module/submodule. What possible rule could tell Python which of those five you’re intending, short of reading your mind? A human can do some limited mind reading. Usually you don’t have modules named ”__main__” except as the main script of a package; “module” sounds like a good name for a module but “to” doesn’t; people rarely use hierarchies more than 2 or 3 deep for packages but often do use deep hierarchies for filesystem paths; etc. But even a human can’t guess for a case like spam/eggs/cheese.py which one of those is the root. A solution that made it easier to tell Python that something is a package would solve your problem without requiring magic telepathy, and without breaking modules. The obvious way to do that is to put its parent directory on the PYTHONPATH. I don’t understand why you don’t like that, but I suppose you could just as easily have a mechanism that says “this directory is a package just as if its parent were on the PYTHONPATH even though it isn’t”. But I don’t see why making Python and the reader and the shell split a hybrid path into hierarchical fs path and hierarchical module path according to some rule you can’t even tell us is supposed to make that any easier for anyone. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/C2NIFGBPEHPK52CVS2CIB2XLZ6L7A2MG/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
