On 30Mar.2019 0747, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I like this PEP in principle, but the specific "open_for_import" name > bothers me a lot, as it implies that "importing" is the only situation > where a file will be opened for code execution. > > If this part of the API were lower down the stack (e.g. > "_io.open_for_code_execution") then I think it would make more sense - > APIs like tokenize.open(), runpy.run_path(), PyRun_SimpleFile(), > shelve, etc, could use that, without having to introduce a dependency > on importlib to get access to the functionality. It was called "open_for_exec" at one point, though I forget exactly why we changed it. But I have no problem with moving it. Something like this? PyImport_OpenForImport -> PyIO_OpenForExec PyImport_SetOpenForImportHook -> PyIO_SetOpenForExecHook importlib.util.open_for_import -> _io.open_for_exec Or more in line with Nick's suggestion: PyImport_OpenForImport -> PyIO_OpenExecutableCode PyImport_SetOpenForImportHook -> PyIO_SetOpenExecutableCodeHook importlib.util.open_for_import -> _io.open_executable_code I dropped "For", but I don't really care that much about the name. I'd be okay dropping either "executable" or "code" as well - I don't really have a good sense of which will make people more likely to use this correctly. Cheers, Steve
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