On 31 July 2010 02:21, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Waterworth
da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Having thought it through thoroughly, my preference is for a warning.
I don't think it's a good practise to import the
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Waterworth
da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
@Nick: I suppose the simplest way to detect re-importation in the
general case, is to store a set of hashes of files that have been
imported. When a user tries to import a file where it's hash is
already in the
On 31/07/2010 16:07, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Waterworth
da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
@Nick: I suppose the simplest way to detect re-importation in the
general case, is to store a set of hashes of files that have been
imported. When a user tries to
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
..
That said, I really don't think catching such a rare error is worth
*any* runtime overhead. Just making __main__ and the real module
name refer to the same object in sys.modules is a different matter,
but I'm not
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Some people workaround the potential for bugs caused by __main__ reimporting
itself by doing it *deliberately*. Glyf even recommends it as good practise.
;-)
http://glyf.livejournal.com/60326.html
So - the fix
On 31/07/2010 16:30, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Some people workaround the potential for bugs caused by __main__ reimporting
itself by doing it *deliberately*. Glyf even recommends it as good practise.
;-)
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
..
That said, I really don't think catching such a rare error is worth
*any* runtime overhead. Just making __main__ and the real
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 31/07/2010 16:30, Nick Coghlan wrote:
With my change, that code would work just fine. from myproject.gizmo
import main and from __main__ import main would just return the
same object, whereas currently they
On 29 July 2010 07:32, Daniel Waterworth da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, I certainly didn't expect it. If
you create a file called test.py with the following contents,
class Test:
pass
def test_1():
import test
print Test == test.Test
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:26:26AM +0100, Daniel Waterworth wrote:
@Oleg: ...
This is purely CPython bug-fixing/the discussion of
implementation choices.
I am not sure it's a bug. By manipulating sys.path (or symlinks in the
FS) one can import the same file as different modules as many
On 30/07/2010 17:59, Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:26:26AM +0100, Daniel Waterworth wrote:
@Oleg: ...
This is purely CPython bug-fixing/the discussion of
implementation choices.
I am not sure it's a bug.
It isn't a bug but it's a very common *cause* of bugs,
On 30 July 2010 18:32, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 30/07/2010 17:59, Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:26:26AM +0100, Daniel Waterworth wrote:
@Oleg: ...
This is purely CPython bug-fixing/the discussion of
implementation choices.
I am not sure it's
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:46:44PM +0100, Daniel Waterworth wrote:
can anyone think of a case where someone has
been annoyed that, having imported that same module twice via
symlinks, they have had problems relating to modules being independent
instances?
I've had problems with two
At 11:50 PM 7/30/2010 +0400, Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 07:46:44PM +0100, Daniel Waterworth wrote:
can anyone think of a case where someone has
been annoyed that, having imported that same module twice via
symlinks, they have had problems relating to modules being
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Daniel Waterworth
da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Having thought it through thoroughly, my preference is for a warning.
That's actually harder than it sounds.
Inserting __main__ into sys.modules under its normal name as well as
__main__ is actually pretty easy
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Waterworth
da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Having thought it through thoroughly, my preference is for a warning.
I don't think it's a good practise to import the __main__ module by
filename, as renaming the file will break the code. I got stung after,
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, I certainly didn't expect it. If
you create a file called test.py with the following contents,
class Test:
pass
def test_1():
import test
print Test == test.Test
if __name__ == '__main__':
test_1()
and then run it ($ python test.py),
Hello.
We are sorry but we cannot help you. This mailing list is to work on
developing Python (adding new features to Python itself and fixing bugs);
if you're having problems learning, understanding or using Python, please
find another forum. Probably python-list/comp.lang.python mailing
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Daniel Waterworth
da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, I certainly didn't expect it. If
you create a file called test.py with the following contents,
class Test:
pass
def test_1():
import test
print Test ==
On 29/07/2010 07:32, Daniel Waterworth wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, I certainly didn't expect it. If
you create a file called test.py with the following contents,
The issue is that when your code is executed as a script it is run as
the __main__ module and not as the
20 matches
Mail list logo
