[JvR] > > but [sys.path_importer_cache is] not a new hook, it's a cache for > > the path_hooks hook. So I think the PEP proposes only two new > > hooks. [James C. Ahlstrom] > I disagree. It is publicly available in sys, and the PEP specifies > it can be replaced or modified. And if you want to add a hook, it > is easier to put it into sys.path_importer_cache than to add it > to the list in sys.path_hooks. If you add it to sys.path_hooks, > you must clear its entry in sys.path_importer_cache too. This is all only half true. sys.path_importer_cache is exposed so you can *clear* it in case you install a path hook that should take over sys.path items that may already have a handler. To only partially clear it is advanced usage. By no means you're supposed to *add* to sys.path_importer_cache explicitly, as someone after you may clear it again, and then you're hosed if there's no proper path hook. I also disagree that adding an importer to sys.path_importer_cache would always be *easier* than doing it the right way by adding a hook to sys.path_hooks. If would be somewhat easier for "cookie" path items, but I think in 99% of these cases a path-less importer on sys.meta_path would work just as well. I guess I should start on some proper documentation... Just
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4