On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:54 AM <tritium-l...@sdamon.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>
> >
> > People can already put all their main logic into a function. If you want
> to unit-
> > test your main function, that's the best way to do it.
> > The trouble is, how much goes into main() and how much into if __name__
> > == '__main__'? For example: Does your main function accept a list of
> > arguments, or does it look in sys.argv? Neither answer is wrong. And that
> > means the best way is to NOT force everyone across all of Python to choose
> > the same way - let people write their code their way.
> >
>
> People write main entry points that are not exactly this?
>
> If __name__ == '__main__':
> sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:]))
>
Of course they do! Much more common in my code is this:
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
or some variation that fetches sys.argv but doesn't call sys.exit. And
quite a number of my projects include a global try/except around
main() to log errors to a file as well as to stderr (due to where
they're used), or process their args individually (for arg in
sys.argv[1:]: do_stuff(arg)), or some other variation. It's most
certainly NOT always exactly what you show there.
And that's the problem. If it's part of the language definition, it
will always have *exactly* the same semantics. As an idiom, it can be
varied slightly to suit the situation, but as a language feature, it's
rigid.
ChrisA
_______________________________________________
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/ITRCOHH525FPD5IQL7AWUY67IBBTGCLD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
