Alternative à execfile en Python 3? [dupliquer]

Question

Cette question a déjà une réponse ici:

• Quelle est une alternative à execfile en Python 3? 11 réponses

python 2 avait la fonction de commande interne execfile , qui a été retiré dans le python 3.0 . Discute alternatives de cette question pour Python 3.0, mais certains changements considérables ont été faites depuis Python 3.0 .

Quelle est la meilleure alternative à la execfile pour Python 3.2 et futur Python 3.x versions ?

Answer 1

The 2to3 script (also the one in Python 3.2) replaces

execfile(filename, globals, locals)

by

exec(compile(open(filename, "rb").read(), filename, 'exec'), globals, locals)

This seems to be the official recommendation.

Answer 2

execfile(filename)

can be replaced with

exec(open(filename).read())

which works in all versions of Python

Answer 3

In Python3.x this is the closest thing I could come up with to executing a file directly, that matches running python /path/to/somefile.py.

Notes:

• Uses binary reading to avoid encoding issues
• Garenteed to close the file (Python3.x warns about this)
• defines __main__, some scripts depend on this to check if they are loading as a module or not for eg. if __name__ == "__main__"
• setting __file__ is nicer for exception messages and some scripts use __file__ to get the paths of other files relative to them.

def exec_full(filepath):
    import os
    global_namespace = {
        "__file__": filepath,
        "__name__": "__main__",
    }
    with open(filepath, 'rb') as file:
        exec(compile(file.read(), filepath, 'exec'), global_namespace)

# execute the file
exec_full("/path/to/somefile.py")

Answer 4

Standard runpy.run_path is an alternative.