RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jan 9 21:12:07 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076047.html

On Jan 9, 2008 7:38 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> > Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de> wrote:
> >>  I've attached the first public draft of my first PEP.
> >
> > Some brief thoughts from me on the PEP...
> >
> > Post import hooks sound great and a good idea.
> >
> > Lazy importing sounds like a recipe for hard to find bugs and rather
> > too magic for my taste.
> >
> > Perhaps you should separate these two things into two PEPs and
> > implementations?
> >
>
> And now that I think about it some more, so long as the post-import hook
> implementation recognises that lazy import libraries *exist*, all it
> really needs to do is provide a way for the externally implemented lazy
> import to trigger whatever import hooks have been registered when the
> module is finally loaded.
>
> So count me in with the people that think it is worth separating the two
> ideas - just focus in the PEP on the API needed to make it possible for
> 3rd party implementation of lazy imports to interoperate correctly with
> the post-import hooks, without proposing to add such an implementation
> directly to the standard library.
>

I agree with Nick and Nick.  This should really be two separate PEPs.

-Brett

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076047.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP: Lazy module imports and post import hook