Michael Hudson wrote:
> I've not really been following this discussion with utmost care, but
> the name "meta_path" doesn't move me. Wouldn't sys.importers be
> better name? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding it's intent -- which is
> still an argument for a better name.
I don't like the name much either, but it _does_ fit quite well as the
idea is that sys.path importing gets invoked through an item on
meta_path. Perhaps this sketch helps a little:
sys.meta_path = [
BuiltinImporter(), # handles builtin modules
FrozenImporter(), # handles frozen modules
PathImporter(), # handles sys.path
]
def find_module(fullname, path=None):
for i in sys.meta_path:
l = i.find_module(fullname, path)
if l is not None:
return l
return None
class PathImporter:
def find_module(self, fullname, path=None):
if path is None:
path = sys.path
for p in path:
i = get_path_importer(p) # deals with sys.path_hooks & cache
if i is not None:
l = i.find_module(fullname)
if l is not None:
return l
retun None
This is how you should look at it, even though it doesn't match the
implementation (yet). Right now you should imagine those three objects
on meta_path as an implicit extension of sys.meta_path, they don't yet
physically exist. This should change in the near future, perhaps even
with 2.3a2.
Just
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