PEP: 499
Title: ``python -m foo`` should also bind ``'foo'`` in ``sys.modules``
Author: Cameron Simpson <cs@cskk.id.au>, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>, Joseph Jevnik <joejev@gmail.com>
BDFL-Delegate: Alyssa Coghlan
Status: Deferred
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 07-Aug-2015
Python-Version: 3.10


PEP Deferral
============

The implementation of this PEP isn't currently expected to be ready for the
Python 3.9 feature freeze in April 2020, so it has been deferred 12 months to
Python 3.10.


Abstract
========

When a module is used as a main program on the Python command line,
such as by:

    python -m module.name ...

it is easy to accidentally end up with two independent instances
of the module if that module is again imported within the program.
This PEP proposes a way to fix this problem.

When a module is invoked via Python's -m option the module is bound
to ``sys.modules['__main__']`` and its ``.__name__`` attribute is set to
``'__main__'``.
This enables the standard "main program" boilerplate code at the
bottom of many modules, such as::

    if __name__ == '__main__':
        sys.exit(main(sys.argv))

However, when the above command line invocation is used it is a
natural inference to presume that the module is actually imported
under its official name ``module.name``,
and therefore that if the program again imports that name
then it will obtain the same module instance.

That actuality is that the module was imported only as ``'__main__'``.
Another import will obtain a distinct module instance, which can
lead to confusing bugs,
all stemming from having two instances of module global objects:
one in each module.

Examples include:

module level data structures
  Some modules provide features such as caches or registries
  as module level global variables,
  typically private.
  A second instance of a module creates a second data structure.
  If that structure is a cache
  such as in the ``re`` module
  then two caches exist leading to wasteful memory use.
  If that structure is a shared registry
  such as a mapping of values to handlers
  then it is possible to register a handler to one registry
  and to try to use it via the other registry, where it is unknown.

sentinels
  The standard test for a sentinel value provided by a module
  is the identity comparison using ``is``,
  as this avoids unreliable "looks like" comparisons
  such as equality which can both mismatch two values as "equal"
  (for example being zeroish)
  or raise a ``TypeError`` when the objects are incompatible.
  When there are two instances of a module
  there are two sentinel instances
  and only one will be recognised via ``is``.

classes
  With two modules
  there are duplicate class definitions of any classes provided.
  All operations which depend on recognising these classes
  and subclasses of these are prone to failure
  depending where the reference class
  (from one of the modules) is obtained
  and where the comparison class or instance is obtained.
  This impacts ``isinstance``, ``issubclass``
  and also ``try``/``except`` constructs.

Proposal
========

It is suggested that to fix this situation all that is needed is a
simple change to the way the ``-m`` option is implemented: in addition
to binding the module object to ``sys.modules['__main__']``, it is also
bound to ``sys.modules['module.name']``.

Alyssa (Nick) Coghlan has suggested that this is as simple as modifying the
``runpy`` module's ``_run_module_as_main`` function as follows::

    main_globals = sys.modules["__main__"].__dict__

to instead be::

    main_module = sys.modules["__main__"]
    sys.modules[mod_spec.name] = main_module
    main_globals = main_module.__dict__

Joseph Jevnik has pointed out that modules which are packages already
do something very similar to this proposal:
the __init__.py file is bound to the module's canonical name
and the __main__.py file is bound to "__main__".
As such, the double import issue does not occur.
Therefore, this PEP proposes to affect only simple non-package modules.


Considerations and Prerequisites
================================

Pickling Modules
----------------

Alyssa has mentioned `issue 19702`_ which proposes (quoted from the issue):

- runpy will ensure that when __main__ is executed via the import
  system, it will also be aliased in sys.modules as __spec__.name
- if __main__.__spec__ is set, pickle will use __spec__.name rather
  than __name__ to pickle classes, functions and methods defined in
  __main__
- multiprocessing is updated appropriately to skip creating __mp_main__
  in child processes when __main__.__spec__ is set in the parent
  process

The first point above covers this PEP's specific proposal.


A Normal Module's ``__name__`` Is No Longer Canonical
-----------------------------------------------------

Chris Angelico points out that it becomes possible to import a
module whose ``__name__`` is not what you gave to "import", since
"__main__" is now present at "module.name", so a subsequent
``import module.name`` finds it already present.
Therefore, ``__name__`` is no longer the canonical name for some normal imports.

Some counter arguments follow:

- As of :pep:`451` a module's canonical name is stored at ``__spec__.name``.
- Very little code should actually care about ``__name__`` being the canonical name
  and any that does should arguably be updated to consult ``__spec__.name``
  with fallback to ``__name__`` for older Pythons, should that be relevant.
  This is true even if this PEP is not approved.
- Should this PEP be approved,
  it becomes possible to introspect a module by its canonical name
  and ask "was this the main program?" by inferring from ``__name__``.
  This was not previously possible.

The glaring counter example is the standard "am I the main program?" boilerplate,
where ``__name__`` is expected to be "__main__".
This PEP explicitly preserves that semantic.


Reference Implementation
========================

`BPO 36375 <https://bugs.python.org/issue36375>`_ is the issue tracker entry
for the PEP's reference implementation, with the current draft PR being
available `on GitHub <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/12490>`_.


Open Questions
==============

This proposal does raise some backwards compatibility concerns, and these will
need to be well understood, and either a deprecation process designed, or clear
porting guidelines provided.

Pickle compatibility
--------------------

If no changes are made to the pickle module, then pickles that were previously
being written with the correct module name (due to a dual import) may start
being written with ``__main__`` as their module name instead, and hence fail
to be loaded correctly by other projects.

Scenarios to be checked:

* ``python script.py`` writing, ``python -m script`` reading
* ``python -m script`` writing, ``python script.py`` reading
* ``python -m script`` writing, ``python some_other_app.py`` reading
* ``old_python -m script`` writing, ``new_python -m script`` reading
* ``new_python -m script`` writing, ``old_python -m script`` reading


Projects that special-case ``__main__``
---------------------------------------

In order to get the regression test suite to pass, the current reference
implementation had to patch ``pdb`` to avoid destroying its own global
namespace.

This suggests there may be a broader compatibility issue where some scripts are
relying on direct execution and import giving different namespaces (just as
package execution keeps the two separate by executing the ``__main__``
submodule in the ``__main__`` namespace, while the package name references
the ``__init__`` file as usual.


Background
==========

`I tripped over this issue`_ while debugging a main program via a
module which tried to monkey patch a named module, that being the
main program module.  Naturally, the monkey patching was ineffective
as it imported the main module by name and thus patched the second
module instance, not the running module instance.

However, the problem has been around as long as the ``-m`` command
line option and is encountered regularly, if infrequently, by others.

In addition to `issue 19702`_, the discrepancy around ``__main__``
is alluded to in :pep:`451` and a similar proposal (predating :pep:`451`)
is described in :pep:`395` under
:pep:`Fixing dual imports of the main module <395#fixing-dual-imports-of-the-main-module>`.


References
==========

.. _issue 19702: http://bugs.python.org/issue19702

.. _I tripped over this issue: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2015-August/694905.html


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.
