在python程序中数据的来源可以是-python – __author__的起源是什么？

我的猜测是，从旧的时候，包装元数据不常见。

在PEP 8中，鼓励使用__version__顶级变量来保存正在使用的版本控制系统的修订版本号。这可追溯到2001-05-01。 PEP 396取代了模块__version__属性。

对于__author__，有一篇关于python开发者邮件列表的帖子。这可追溯到2001-03-01。作者质疑使用__author__："下一步是__cute_signoff__？”。

既然在PEP中没有提到，我们不用担心__作者___。包装元数据是我们的朋友。

Ping just checked in this:

> Log Message:

> Add __author__ and __credits__ variables.

>

>

> Index: tokenize.py

> ===================================================================

> RCS file: /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Lib/tokenize.py,v

> retrieving revision 1.19

> retrieving revision 1.20

> diff -C2 -r1.19 -r1.20

> *** tokenize.py 2001/03/01 04:27:19 1.19

> --- tokenize.py 2001/03/01 13:56:40 1.20

> ***************

> *** 10,14 ****

> it produces COMMENT tokens for comments and gives type OP for all operators."""

>

> ! __version__ = "Ka-Ping Yee, 26 October 1997; patched, GvR 3/30/98"

>

> import string, re

> --- 10,15 ----

> it produces COMMENT tokens for comments and gives type OP for all operators."""

>

> ! __author__ = 'Ka-Ping Yee '

> ! __credits__ = 'first version, 26 October 1997; patched, GvR 3/30/98'

>

> import string, re

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the __credits__ variable inserted

here. First of all, __credits__ doesn't really describe the

information given. Second, doesn't this info belong in the CVS

history? I'm not for including random extracts of a module's history

in the source code -- this is more likely than not to become out of

date. (E.g. from the CVS log it's not clear why my contribution

deserves a mention while Tim's doesn't -- it looks like Tim probably

spent a lot more time thinking about it than I did.)

Anothor source of discomfort is that there's absolutely no standard

for this kind of meta-data variables. We've got __version__, and I

believe we once agreed on that (in 1994 or so :-). But __author__?

__credits__? What next -- __cute_signoff__?