Chris Angelico rosuav at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 19:54:55 EST 2014

• Previous message (by thread): How about some syntactic sugar for " __name__ == '__main__' "?
• Next message (by thread): How about some syntactic sugar for " __name__ == '__main__' "?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>> Safer - and more in line with the way
>> other such functions are written - would be a dunder function:
>>
>> if __name__ == '__main__': __main__()
>
>
> I presume you mean that calling __main__ implicitly would be both consistent
> and safer.  No code should be using that now.

That's what I mean. Like changing iter.next() to iter.__next__() in
Py3, it'd be using a name that emphasizes that the interpreter, not
userland code, should be calling this function.

Of course, it'd still be optional. Top-level code would be executed
top-down, same as it now is.

ChrisA

---

• Previous message (by thread): How about some syntactic sugar for " __name__ == '__main__' "?
• Next message (by thread): How about some syntactic sugar for " __name__ == '__main__' "?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-list mailing list