[Python-Dev] API for the new sysconfig module (original) (raw)

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Sun Dec 12 16:53:20 CET 2010

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100 Łukasz Langa <lukasz at langa.pl> wrote:

Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22🔞

>> *(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches >> pre-2.7, which ones were mode post-2.7 release, and which ones went in >> pre-2.7, but were 3.x only regardless) > > Right.  I missed that it was already in 2.7. > So, now we're stuck with it, forever. Why not deprecate it for 3.2 (easy since it's probably not yet used anywhere anyway, even in 2.7) and introduce sys.sysconfig. We already had a lot of churn around these APIs (distutils & friends). I don't think it's a good idea to introduce even more churn. Oh and by the way it's too late to add or remove features from 3.2. I really like that much better than Java-like accessor functions. Do you actually use sysconfig yourself? It's quite a specialized module, and I don't think API elegance arguments have a great weight here. I have used them and I do think they're fairly ugly and unwieldy.  However, I agree that we should not rush into a different design.  Since sysconfig was essentially refactored out of distutils (and now we have two ways to do it!), and we're getting distutils2 for 3.3, I think it would be better to work out a more natural design for sysconfig for 3.3.  Then the sysconfig module can go through the natural deprecation cycle.

I don't think any API refactoring worth the pain here. I don't see the proposed changes make the caller's code that much better. The existing one is good enough in my opinion.

Tarek

Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list