On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Tim Peters wrote: > "A fix" seems to amount to treating > > import M > > as if it were > > try: > import M > except: > if M in sys.modules: > del sys.modules[M] > raise I remember suggesting exactly that some time ago (i think it was motivated at the time by the extreme pain that broken modules were causing for webserver-mode pydoc in its attempt to update loaded modules if the source files had changed on disk). Guido rejected it because you can't guarantee that the refcount on M is 1 at the point where you attempt to 'del sys.modules[M]' above. (For example, some other module imported by M could have imported M again, and so hold a reference to it while M is running its startup commands. This is why the entry is added to sys.modules before the body of M starts to run.) He deemed the situation where M is loaded-but-missing-from-sys.modules to be even worse than for M to be left loaded-but-broken therein. If you allow M to stay in sys.modules, then you can at least maintain the guarantee that there is a one-to-one association between loaded module names and loaded module objects. If you remove M from sys.modules but it lingers in memory, referenced elsewhere, you lose even that -- there can be many modules loaded all with the same name and it's a nightmare. The argument is compelling and i am forced to agree, but i still think that we should look for a better solution. I'll ponder this and post any ideas i come up with. -- ?!ng
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