From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-12-11T05:15:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Ideas for replacing $0==__FILE__

Eric Hodel wrote:
> Hal Fulton (hal9000@hypermetrics.com) wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm thinking (again) about the idiom "if $0 == __FILE__" and
>>trying to come up with viable alternatives.
>>
>>It seems to me that we don't really need an "executable" thing
>>like exit/break/return/quit in this context.
>>
>>It could just be a "marker" as someone suggested.
>>
>>My two favorites so far are __TEST__ and __MAIN__.
>>
>>As far as I can see, there should be no conflict or interaction
>>with the __END__ marker.
> 
> 
> We also discussed on IRC having a "-t" flag to the ruby interpreter that
> would run a TEST block (like BEGIN or END or at_exit), but __TEST__
> seems even better than that.

Are we talking about the same thing? In my scheme, if foo.rb had
a __TEST___ section, it would be run simply by ruby foo.rb (and
not run if foo.rb was require'd).

How does that relate to the -t idea (which I don' quite get)?

Hal