RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 10 03:14:48 CEST 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/092907.html

2009/10/9 Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de>:
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> That's an interesting counter proposal. Your idea requires an additional
> import that I try to avoid. Looking at memory and performance, an
> additional module that is imported anyway isn't better. In my humble
> opinion the implementation information belongs into the sys module
> anyway. A new module just for the user site suffix seems unnecessary.

But we want to hide that this is an implementation detail from the
user. Having a new module just for this attribute might seem like
overkill, but I hope that we could use it for more things in the
future. Besides, if _sys is a builtin module, importing it will not
add much overhead.

I forgot to ask before: Does this deprecate platform.python_implementation()?

-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

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

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/092907.html below:

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