[Python-ideas] PEP for executing a module in a package containing relative imports (original) (raw)
George Sakkis george.sakkis at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 00:49:49 CEST 2007
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] PEP for executing a module in a package containing relative imports
- Next message: [Python-ideas] PEP for executing a module in a package containing relative imports
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 4/22/07, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote: > if there's nothing to be passed to the function, why make it a > function at all?
I don't usually like to put big lumps of init code at the module level, because it pollutes the module namespace with local variables. So I typically end up with def main(): ... ... ... if name == "main": main() So I'd be quite happy if I could just define a function called main() and be done with. I don't understand why there's so much opposition to that idea.
+1. Although I may start out at the module level, that's typically the idiom I use eventually for any non-trivial (e.g. more than 1-2 lines) main*.
George
- Only exception is if the module consists essentially of main(), i.e. a small standalone script without classes, functions, etc.
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] PEP for executing a module in a package containing relative imports
- Next message: [Python-ideas] PEP for executing a module in a package containing relative imports
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]