At 10:13 AM 11/16/04 -0200, Carlos Ribeiro wrote: >For example: it is not >clear, from a simple reading, if PEP 302 is up-to-date, or if it is >considered the preferred approach for import hooks. For this reason, I >would like to know if there is any document which may be considered >"authoritative" for the import system (besides ihooks.py and >import.c). If *all* that exists is the source code, well, I guess I'll >have to read it. But anyway... pointers to simple examples also are >helpful. Thanks in advance. PEP 302 is essentially up-to-date (although not fully implemented; see the notes in the PEP), and yes, it's the preferred approach, at least if you're 1) developing an import hook, 2) you're focused on "location" extensions, i.e. importing from places not currently supported, as opposed to adding new filetypes or new ways of compiling, etc., and 3) want to interoperate well with other import hooks. Regarding the use of other import hook modules such as ihooks and imputil, they have in the past been the subject of vigorous debate as to which is the "preferred" way of implementing import hooks. There is also a separately distributed import hook module, 'iu', that inspired the current PEP 302 approach. With respect to these various modules, it is apparently a matter of programmer taste and/or goals as to which is the best.
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