In "What’s New In Python 3.0" document, I can read "Removed execfile(). Instead of execfile(fn) use exec(open(fn).read())". The new syntax has two problems: - if the file is not encoding in UTF-8, we get an unicode error. Eg. see issue #4282 - exec() doesn't support newline different than \n, see issue #4628 We need a short function which opens the Python file with the right encoding. Get Python file encoding and open it with the right encoding is a command pattern. Attached patch proposes a function open_script() to open a Python script with the correct encoding. Using it, execfile() can be replaced by exec(open_script(fn).read()) which doesn't have to two binary file problems.
martin> There is a much simpler solution to the problem: martin> use exec(open(fn,"rb").read()) Ok... but there is the newline issue: (self quote) "exec() doesn't support newline different than \n, see issue #4628". And open_python() can be used for other usages than execfile() ;-) Note: tokenize.open_python() is maybe not the best module and/or function name.
> Ok... but there is the newline issue: (self quote) "exec() doesn't support > newline different than \n, see issue #4628". So that issue should get fixed, then. > And open_python() can be used for other usages than execfile() ;-) > > Note: tokenize.open_python() is maybe not the best module and/or function > name. I remain opposed to the entire concept.
>> Ok... but there is the newline issue: (self quote) >> "exec() doesn't support newline different than \n, >> see issue #4628". > So that issue should get fixed, then. Ok, I will work in the other other issue. If #4628 is fixed, this issue becomes meaningless ;-)
It doesn't seem helpful to leave this issue open, particularly since the title suggest there's a problem with execfile being removed and that's not going to change.
