Just van Rossum <just@letterror.com> writes:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>
> > But then, how would this (working) code have to be written with the
> > new imp.find_module() function:
> >
> > def get_exe_bytes (self):
> > # wininst.exe is in the same directory as this file
> > directory = os.path.dirname(__file__)
> > filename = os.path.join(directory, "wininst.exe")
> > return open(filename, "rb").read()
>
> With the importer protocol (as I imagine it now, this doesn't match
> zipimporter's current behavior yet) it could be written like this:
>
> def get_exe_bytes (self):
> if os.path.isfile(__file__):
> # wininst.exe is in the same directory as this file
> directory = os.path.dirname(__file__)
> filename = os.path.join(directory, "wininst.exe")
> return open(filename, "rb").read()
> else:
> path = __name__.replace(".", os.sep) + os.sep + \
> "wininst.exe"
> return __importer__.get_data(path)
>
Looks ok to me, although I would prefer to write
path = os.sep.join(__name__.split(".") + ["wininst.exe"])
or
path = os.path.join(*__name__.split(".") + ["wininst.exe"])
I just wanted to make sure that I don't have to construct
the arguments for imp.find_module() from __file__.
>
> PS: please take care to not Cc to peps@python.org any more in this
> thread, I think I've done enough harm ;-)
Sorry for that, I noticed it as it was already too late.
Thomas
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