What's the difference between running a script under command box and interpreter?

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:16 PM <jfong at ms4.hinet.net> wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico於 2019年11月4日星期一 UTC+8上午10時19分50秒寫道：
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:01 PM <jfong at ms4.hinet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Angelico於 2019年11月4日星期一 UTC+8上午8時43分07秒寫道：
> > > > Ah, that's a fair point. If you specifically WANT that behaviour, what
> > > > you can do is invoke the script interactively:
> > > >
> > > > python3 -i test.py
> > > >
> > > > That'll run the script as normal, and then drop you into the REPL. All
> > > > your interactive globals *are* that module's globals.
> > > >
> > > > ChrisA
> > >
> > > It surprises me that REPL has essential different behavior in these two situations.
> > >
> >
> > Not really. In each case, the REPL lets you interactively execute code
> > as part of a module. If you start with "-i somescript.py", it starts
> > out by running the contents of that script; otherwise, you start with
> > nothing (as if you ran "-i empty-file.py"). The REPL does the same
> > thing every time; it's a difference between creating the functions
> > directly and importing them.
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> I mean, taking this simple example:
> ---test.py---
> def main():
>     print(rule)
> if __name__ == '__main__:
>     rule = 1
>     main()
> ---
>
> case 1:
> py -i test.py
> 1
> >>> globals()
> >>> main.__globals__
>
> case 2:
> py
> >>> from test import *
> >>> globals()
> >>> main.__globals__
>
> The result is much different. In case 1, the REPL and the module seems in the same global space:-)
>

Yes. The difference is that one of them uses "import" and the other does not.

ChrisA