On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:35, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > Brett Cannon wrote: >> One, does anyone have issues if I check in importlib? We have >> typically said code has to have been selected as best-of-breed by the >> community first, so I realize I am asking for a waiver on this one. > > That rule has never really applied to things that are part of the > interpreter itself though (how could it?). > Well, it's not part of the interpreter yet. That can be viewed as a separate step. > My main question would be how it relates to the existing import > machinery emulation in pkgutil. If adding importlib lets us largely drop > that emulation (instead replacing it with invocations of importlib), > then that seems like a big win to me. You mean stuff like pkgutil.ImpImporter? importlib will be fully modular with meta_path importers for everything short of sys.modules (and even that could be done if people care, but I would rather keep sys.modules stuff on the fast path). So there will be a meta_path importer that handles sys.path/sys.path_hooks/sys.path_importer_cache. That work is part of the "importlib is semantically done, but there are some things I want to imrpove" todo list. If you are more talking about something else I am not sure what you are after. Every module will have a proper loader with importlib. -Brett
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