Rick Wotnaz wrote: > Michael Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > >>What would people think about adding sys to __builtins__ so that >>"import sys" is no longer necessary? This is something I must >>add to every script I write that's not a one-liner since they >>have this idiom at the bottom: >> >>if __name__ == "__main__": >> sys.exit(main(sys.argv[1:])) >> >>Additionally, the necessity of "import sys" makes some >>one-liners a little more unwieldy than they should be--it is >>surely the module I am missing the most in one-liners. For >>example, with this proposal, this inelegant one-liner: >> >>$ python -c "import sys; print >>''.join(sorted(sys.stdin.readlines()))" >> >>could be replaced by: >> >>$ python -c "print ''.join(sorted(sys.stdin.readlines()))" >> >>Since sys is surely the most commonly used module (it is >>imported in 108 of 188 Python 2.4 stdlib modules on my system, >>and certainly more than any other module), I would hope few >>people would be affected by a namespace collision. >> >>Other languages (e.g. C#) always make their system namespace >>available without needing a special import. >> >>In short, given the wide use of sys, its unambiguous nature, and >>the fact that it really is built-in already, although not >>exposed as such, I think we would be better off if sys were >>always allowed even without an import statement. > > > +1 here. As far as I'm concerned, both os and sys could be special- > cased that way. That said, I would guess the likelihood of that > happening is 0. > +1 for both.
Colin W. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
