RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 10 02:29:48 CEST 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/092898.html

2009/10/9 Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de>:
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>> sys.userdirsuffix
>>> -----------------
>>
>> Why not site.userdirsuffix?
>
> Because all implementations of Python like to use the same, unpatched
> site module. The sys module is different for every implementation. It's
> more convenient to have an attribute on the sys module that can be
> filled by each implementation. I could also add a lookup table for all
> known implementations to the site module. But what about unknown or new
> implementations? They would have to wait until we add a new entry for
> them. The sys.userdirsuffix is more flexible and future prove.

I think we should make a semi-private (public to the stdlib) module
like _sys or _implementation part of the Python VM API. Then, instead
of stuffing everything into sys, we can provide this information in
modules where it belongs.

-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/092898.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory