[Python-Dev] Release manager pronouncement needed: PEP 302 Fix (original) (raw)

Neal Norwitz nnorwitz at gmail.com
Thu Jul 27 06:08:40 CEST 2006

What is the behaviour that was added which broke compliance? What is the benefit of the behaviour?

From your description of fixing the problem, it seems there's some risk invovled as it's modiyfing import.c, plus adding new features. What is your recommendation?

n

On 7/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

I posted last week about a need-for-speed patch that broke PEP 302 compliance, and asked if it should be fixed or reverted. I got exactly one response which said "yes, it should be fixed or reverted", which unfortunately didn't answer my question as to which one we should do. :)

If we don't revert it, there are two ways to fix it. One is to just change PEP 302 so that the behavior is unbroken by definition. :) The other is to actually go ahead and fix it by adding PathImporter and NullImporter types to import.c, along with a factory function on sys.pathhooks to create them. (This would've been the PEP-compliant way to implement the need-for-speed patch.) So, "fix" by documentation, fix by fixing, or fix by reverting? Which should it be?

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/nnorwitz%40gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list