Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> > > What it doesn't allow is for the testing of the 'if __name__ ==
> > > "__main__":' clause itself. No matter how simple we make that,
> > > it's still functional code that can contain
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Thanks! I was unaware of that module. It does seem to nicely
> > address the issue I discussed.
>
> You might try the runpy module as-is with Python 2.4. I don't know
> if it works, but it's pure Python so it's worth a try.
Drat
Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> What it doesn't allow is for the testing of the 'if __name__ ==
>>> "__main__":' clause itself. No matter how simple we make that,
>>> it's still functional code that can contain errors, be they
>>> obvious o
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > What it doesn't allow is for the testing of the 'if __name__ ==
> > "__main__":' clause itself. No matter how simple we make that,
> > it's still functional code that can contain errors, be they
> > obvious or subtle; yet it's code
Ben Finney wrote:
> What it doesn't allow is for the testing of the 'if __name__ ==
> "__main__":' clause itself. No matter how simple we make that, it's
> still functional code that can contain errors, be they obvious or
> subtle; yet it's code that *can't* be touched by the unit test (by
> design
Howdy all,
PEP 299 http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0299> details an
enhancement for entry points to Python programs: a module attribute
(named '__main__') that will be automatically called if the module is
run as a program.
The PEP has status "Rejected", citing backward-compatibility issues,
a
