On Monday, 20 August 2012 11:57:46 UTC+10, kj wrote:
> This means that no library code can ever count on, for example,
> being able to reliably find the path to the file that contains the
> definition of __main__. That's a weakness, IMO.
No, it's not. It's a _strength_. If you've written a library that requires
absolute knowledge of its installed location in order for its internals to
work, then I'm not installing your library.
> When I do this on my system (OS X + Python 2.7.3), the script bombs
> at the last print statement, because the second call to inspect.getmodule
> (though not the first one) returns None.
So, uh, do something sane like test for the result of inspect.getmodule
_before_ trying to do something invalid to it?
> I don't know of any way to fix inspect.getmodule that does not
> involve, directly or indirectly, keeping a stable record of the
> starting directory.
Then _that is the answer_. YOU need to keep "a stable record":
import inspect
import os
THIS_FILE = os.path.join(os.getcwd(), '<this_module_name>.py')
frame = inspect.currentframe()
print inspect.getmodule(frame).__name__
os.chdir('/some/other/directory')
print inspect.getmodule(frame, _filename=THIS_FILE).__name__
> But, who am I kidding? What needs fixing, right? That's not a
> bug, that's a feature! Etc.
Right. Because that sort of introspection of objects is rare, why burden the
_entire_ language with an obligation that is only required in a few places?
> By now I have learned to expect that 99.99% of Python programmers
> will find that [blah blah blah, whine whine whine].
> Pardon my cynicism, but the general vibe from the replies I've
> gotten to my post (i.e. "if Python ain't got it, it means you don't
> need it") is entirely in line with these expectations.
Oh my god, how DARE people with EXPERIENCE in a language challenge the
PRECONCEPTIONS of an AMATEUR!!! HOW DARE THEY?!?!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
