python的作者叫什么_作者的来历是什么？

我的猜测是，这是从过去包装元数据并不常见的时候。

在PEP 8中，鼓励使用最高级别变量保存正在使用的版本控制系统的修订id。这可以追溯到2001年5月1日。PEP 396将取代模块版本属性。

对于作者，python dev邮件列表中有一篇关于这个问题的文章。这个可以追溯到2001年3月1日。作者质疑“作者”的用法：“接下来是什么？__可爱的签名。

既然政治公众人物中没有提及，我们就不必担心作者。无论如何，打包元数据是我们的朋友。Ping just checked in this:

python作者。> Log Message:

> Add __author__ and __credits__ variables.

>

>

> Index: tokenize.py

python之父百度百科。> ===================================================================

> 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

python怎么用、> *** 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."""

python爬虫教程？>

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

>

> import string, re

> --- 10,15 ----

python4？> 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'

>

java和python？> 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__?