On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:39:52 -0400 Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: > > >> * XXX what is the __file__ of a "pure virtual" package? ``None``? > >> Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a > >> trailing separator? No matter what we put, *some* code is > >> going to break, but the last choice might allow some code to > >> accidentally work. Is that good or bad? > >A pure virtual package having no source file, I think it should have no > >__file__ at all. I don’t know if that would break more code than using > >an empty string for example, but it feels righter. > > I agree that the empty string is the worst of the choices. no __file__ or > __file__=None is better. None should be the answer. It simplifies inspection of module data (repr(__file__) gives you something recognizable instead of raising) and makes semantically sense (!) since there is, indeed, no actual file backing the module. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com