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:
> 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in the source code -- this is more likely than not to become out of
date.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__?