Yes, it seems like having special handling of `def __main__` is an extension in the spirit of `package/__main__.py `.
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:43 PM Thomas Grainger <tagr...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI you can already use package/__main__.py which is runnable with `python > -m package` and you don't need the `if __name__ == "__main__":` > https://docs.python.org/3.10/library/__main__.html#main-py-in-python-packages > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2021, 20:39 Paul Bryan, <pbr...@anode.ca> wrote: > >> How about the following? >> >> def __main__(): >> >> ... >> >> >> Behavior: >> >> 1. Load module as normal. >> 2. If __name__ is "__main__" or module is named in python -m, call >> __main__ function. >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 15:35 -0400, Jonathan Crall wrote: >> >> I was curious if / what sort of proposals have been considered for >> simplifying the pattern: >> >> ``` >> def main(): >> ... >> >> if __name__ == "__main__": >> main() >> ``` >> >> I imagine this topic must have come up before, so I'd be interested in >> any relevant history. >> >> But unless I'm missing something, it seems like adding some easier >> alternative to this cumbersome entrypoint syntax would be worth considering. >> >> My motivation for writing this suggestion is in an attempt to stop a >> common anti-pattern, where instead of defining a `main` function (or a >> function by any other name) an simply calling that by adding the above two >> lines, a lot of Python users I work with will just start dumping their >> logic into the global scope of the module. >> >> Needless to say, this can have consequences. If there was some default >> builtin, let's call it `__main__` for now (open to suggestions), that took >> a function as an argument and conditionally executed it if `__name__ == >> "__main__"` in the caller's scope, that would allow us to simplify the >> above boilerplate to a single line with no extra indentation: >> >> ``` >> def main(): >> ... >> >> __main__(main) >> ``` >> >> In addition to being simpler, it would allow users to avoid the trap of >> adding logic that impacts the global scope. It would also save me some >> keystrokes, which I'm always grateful for. >> >> Furthermore, it could be used as a decorator (and the use-case wouldn't >> be unreasonable!), and we all know how much new Python users love >> decorators when they find out about them. >> >> ``` >> @__main__ >> def main(): >> ... >> ``` >> >> Maybe having such a builtin would discourage globals and help new users >> get the use-decorators-everywhere bug out of their system. >> >> -- >> -Dr. Jon Crall (him) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/FKQS2NEI5RQMTX53N77KQQDFZ6HZONXU/ >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/RNB5YYTGQIV4CRPUZEZTADKG7WJ4YY3B/ >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> > -- -Dr. Jon Crall (him)
_______________________________________________ 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/WQJRWP3JT5HNRXO6BGG45MVRTDBQRJUB/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
