News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on An exploration of why Python doesn't require a 'main' function. Parent comment

Re:An exploration of why Python doesn't require a 'main' fun... by kzrdude on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @12:21PM (#23908140)
Ad 1,

the current idiom uses dunder name, which is implicitly defined and looks special.

Making main special would be about the same level of a solution, yet more conventional

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An exploration of why Python doesn't require a 'main' fun... by toyg on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @12:34PM (#23908286)
Dunder methods don’t “look” special, they are. Marking them as such has side-effects, and as soon as you see a dunder, you know you’re going “lower”.

If “main” has to be a special function, it must keep the dunder.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An exploration of why Python doesn't require a 'main' fun... by hansvm on Tuesday July 21, 2020 @12:34PM (#23908277)
There's always `__main__.py` if you want something special.
[ Parent | on HN ]