Re: running multiple scripts -- which way is more elegant?

From	Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
Subject	Re: running multiple scripts -- which way is more elegant?
Date	2011-06-20 13:48 -0400
References	<BANLkTi=t9cHtPN6QOa4eUWuraZToOZxnoQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=hHPo3ap9Cys40DX7wGdTEbn44OQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimBCVF7ed_sf3h-a4CA=gZpP4gCcA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikpoGKrmNxYni+e+AcRiVzOEFWFQA@mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.185.1308592128.1164.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/20/2011 2:51 AM, Stephen Bunn wrote:

> Thanks for the replies. I would like to use the second method because I
> plan to implement everything in python.

The main problem of your second method is that you repeat the check 
function in each script. That will be a problem if you ever want to 
modify it. I might put is into a separate file and import into each script.

  Unfortunately I have not been
> able to work out how to get the imports to work.
>
> import config_script obviously doesn't work and
> __import__(config_script) works from the python interpreter but fails in
> the script (ImportError: Import by filename is not supported.)

Look at builtin function __import__(filename).

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: running multiple scripts -- which way is more elegant? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-06-20 13:48 -0400

csiph-web