Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Guido van Rossum <guido@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> wrote: > > > Actually I'm so happy with the magic cookie scheme that I've > > > advocated at various times in the past that something similar also > > > be used for determining where builtin modules and frozen modules > > > appear in sys.path... > > > > I see the magic cookies as a poor man's (but more compatible!) version > > of a chain of importers as advocated by Greg Stein and other imputil > > fans. I like the idea, except that I think that the chain should be > > manipulatable more easily than the current imputil implementation. > > I know this has been asked before, but cannot recall > any of the arguments against it: how about replacing > Jack's magic cookies with importer objects? > > (in other words, if a path item is a string, import as > usual. otherwise, ask the importer for a code object > or maybe better, a module object). Plus, for backward compatibility, make sure that str(importerobj) returns something which resembles a non-existing directory. Note that the builtin importer skips non-string entries in sys.path, so the above will only be needed for existing import hooks. Still, I would like to rephrase my 0.02EUR which I already posted twice... why not start to think about what these importers would do first ? If there are only a handful of wishes we could just add them to the builtin machinery and be done with it... -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 29 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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