Safe to modify globals(), or not?

[Aahz]

In article <bve8f3$us$01$1 at news.t-online.com>,
Peter Otten  <__peter__ at web.de> wrote:
>Aahz wrote:
>> In article <bvd6hm$9h1$03$1 at news.t-online.com>,
>> Peter Otten  <__peter__ at web.de> wrote:
>>>Aahz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> import __main__
>>>> tmp = parse_funky_language("Hey, this is far out, man.")
>>>> setattr(__main__, tmp.name, tmp.value)
>>>> 
>>>> In the context of the interactive interpreter, it's a bit harder to do;
>>>> I don't remember off-hand what the namespace of the interpreter is.
>>>
>>>You don't need to :-)
>>>
>>>Python 2.3.3 (#1, Jan  3 2004, 13:57:08)
>>>[GCC 3.2] on linux2
>>>Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>>>> __name__
>>>'__main__'
>> 
>> Yes, but how do you access that from a module?
>
><interp.py>
>import sys
>import __main__
>setattr(sys.modules["__main__"], "name", "value")
>__main__.anotherName = "another value"
></interp.py>
>
>Python 2.3.3 (#1, Jan  3 2004, 13:57:08)
>[GCC 3.2] on linux2
>Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>> import interp
>>>> name
>'value'
>>>> anotherName
>'another value'
>>>>
>
>Or is this a misunderstanding continued?

<smacks head>  No, it's a brain fart; for some reason, I was thinking
that "__main__" == "currently executing module".
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable
classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code -- 
not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death."  --GvR