> > In the case of nested classes, a possible solution might be for
> > X.Y.__name__ to be "X.Y" rather than plain "Y". Then a simple change
> > to pickle (or to getattr :-) could allow the correct unpickling.
>
> I'd rather expect that X.Y.__module__ is "Foo.X".
Also possible. There are problems with each though; if X is a class
in module Foo, __import__("Foo.X") doesn't work. Example:
>>> class C:
class N: pass
>>> C.N.__module__
'__main__'
>>> C.N.__module__ = '__main__.C'
>>> import pickle
>>> s = pickle.dumps(C.N())
>>> pickle.loads(s)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/pickle.py", line 1071, in loads
return Unpickler(file).load()
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/pickle.py", line 675, in load
dispatch[key](self)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/pickle.py", line 852, in load_inst
klass = self.find_class(module, name)
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/pickle.py", line 907, in find_class
__import__(module)
ImportError: No module named C
>>>
Given that we have to fix pickle.py and cPickle.c in either case, I
think I'd prefer setting __name__ to a dotted name reflecting the full
name of the class inside its module over setting __module__ to
something that's not a module.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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