On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > >> > This does mean, though, that imp.cache_from_source() and > >> > imp.source_from_cache() might need to be updated to raise a reasonable > >> > exception when sys.implementation.cache_tag is set to None as I > believe > >> > right now it will raise a TypeError because None isn't a str. But what > >> > to > >> > raise instead? TypeError? EnvironmentError? > >> NotImplementedError seems fine for me too if we don't end up using this > >> flag. > > > > OK, that's 2 votes for that exception. > > + 1 from me as well, both for skipping any implicit reading or writing > of the cache when cache_tag is None (IIRC, that's the use case we had > in mind when we allowed that field to be None in the PEP 421 > discussion), and for *explicit* attempts to access the cache when the > tag is None triggering NotImplementedError. > > That way people are free to use either LBYL (checking cache_tag) or > EAFP (catching NotImplementedError). > I'm sold: http://bugs.python.org/issue15056 for tracking the change. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120613/005b4999/attachment.html>
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