On 4/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 01:49 PM 4/26/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >OK, forget it. I'll face the pitchforks. > > > >I'm disappointed though -- it sounds like we can never change anything > >about Python any more because it will upset the oldtimers. > > I know exactly how you feel. :) Hardly -- you're not the BDFL. :) > But there's always Python 3.0, and if we're refactoring the import > machinery there, we can do this the right way, not just the "right now" > way. ;) IMO, if Py3K does this, it can and should be inclusive of > top-level packages and assemble __path__ using all the sys.path > entries. If we're going to break it, let's break it all the way. :) No -- I'm actually quite happy with most of the existing behavior (though not with the APIs). > I'm still really curious why the importer solution (especially if tucked > away in a Google-defined sitecustomize) won't work, though. Well, we have a sitecustomize, and it's been decided that it's such a pain to get it to do the right thing that we're trying to get rid of it. So proposing to add more magic there would not work. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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