[Python-Dev] how important is setting co_filename for a module being imported to what file is set to? (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Mon Aug 31 23:57:49 CEST 2009

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 14:52, P.J. Eby<pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

At 01:39 PM 8/31/2009 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:59, Brett Cannon<brett at python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27, Antoine Pitrou<solipsis at pitrou.net> > wrote: >> Brett Cannon <brett python.org> writes: >>> >>> I will plan to take this approach then; >>> http://bugs.python.org/issue6811 will track all of this. Since this is >>> a 3.2 thing I am not going to rush to implement this. >> >> I still don't understand what the point is of this complicated approach >> (adding >> an argument to marshal.load()) compared to the simple and obvious >> approach >> (making cofilename mutable). > > If we add the argument to marshal.load* we can eventually drop the > file location string from marshal data entirely by requiring people to > specify the filename to use when the code object is created. Making > cofilename mutable simply doesn't allow for this case unless we > decide a default value should be used instead. > I should also mention that I am +0 on the marshal.load* change. I could be convinced to try to pursue a mutable cofilenme direction, but considering the BDFL likes the marshal.load* approach and it opens up the possibility of compacting the marshal format I am leaning towards sticking with this initial direction. Why not just try the code I posted earlier, that doesn't need a mutable attribute OR an API change?

Ignoring that 'new' is not in Python 3.x (luckily 'types' is), I want a proper solution that doesn't require reconstructing every code object that I happen to import.

-Brett

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list