Question

Cette question a déjà une réponse ici:

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 ?

Était-ce utile?

La solution

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.

Autres conseils

execfile(filename)

can be replaced with

exec(open(filename).read())

which works in all versions of Python

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")

Standard runpy.run_path is an alternative.

Licencié sous: CC-BY-SA avec attribution
Non affilié à StackOverflow
scroll top