Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 338 vs PEP 328 - a limitation of the -m switch
At 11:18 AM 6/18/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: On 6/18/06, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 'bug fix' solution would be: 1. Change main.c and PySys_SetPath so that '' is NOT prepended to sys.path when the -m switch is used 2. Change runpy.run_module to add a __pkg_name__ attribute if the module being executed is inside a package 3. Change import.c to check for __pkg_name__ if (and only if) __name__ == '__main__' and use __pkg_name__ if it is found. That's pretty heavy-handed for a pretty esoteric use case. (Except #1, which I think should be done regardless as otherwise we'd get a messed-up sys.path.) Since the -m module is being run as a script, shouldn't it put the module's directory as the first entry on sys.path? I don't think we should change the fact that *some* directory is always inserted at the beginning of sys.path -- and all the precedents at the moment say script directory, if you consider -c and the interactive interpreter to be scripts in the current directory. :) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 338 vs PEP 328 - a limitation of the -m switch
On 6/18/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:18 AM 6/18/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: On 6/18/06, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 'bug fix' solution would be: 1. Change main.c and PySys_SetPath so that '' is NOT prepended to sys.path when the -m switch is used 2. Change runpy.run_module to add a __pkg_name__ attribute if the module being executed is inside a package 3. Change import.c to check for __pkg_name__ if (and only if) __name__ == '__main__' and use __pkg_name__ if it is found. That's pretty heavy-handed for a pretty esoteric use case. (Except #1, which I think should be done regardless as otherwise we'd get a messed-up sys.path.) Since the -m module is being run as a script, shouldn't it put the module's directory as the first entry on sys.path? Yes for a top-level module. No if it's executing a module inside a package; it's really evil to have a package directory on sys.path. I don't think we should change the fact that *some* directory is always inserted at the beginning of sys.path -- and all the precedents at the moment say script directory, if you consider -c and the interactive interpreter to be scripts in the current directory. :) You have a point about sys.path[0] being special. It could be the current directory instead of the package directory. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 338 vs PEP 328 - a limitation of the -m switch
At 02:03 PM 6/18/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: On 6/18/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:18 AM 6/18/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: On 6/18/06, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 'bug fix' solution would be: 1. Change main.c and PySys_SetPath so that '' is NOT prepended to sys.path when the -m switch is used 2. Change runpy.run_module to add a __pkg_name__ attribute if the module being executed is inside a package 3. Change import.c to check for __pkg_name__ if (and only if) __name__ == '__main__' and use __pkg_name__ if it is found. That's pretty heavy-handed for a pretty esoteric use case. (Except #1, which I think should be done regardless as otherwise we'd get a messed-up sys.path.) Since the -m module is being run as a script, shouldn't it put the module's directory as the first entry on sys.path? Yes for a top-level module. No if it's executing a module inside a package; it's really evil to have a package directory on sys.path. I don't think we should change the fact that *some* directory is always inserted at the beginning of sys.path -- and all the precedents at the moment say script directory, if you consider -c and the interactive interpreter to be scripts in the current directory. :) You have a point about sys.path[0] being special. It could be the current directory instead of the package directory. Mightn't that be a security risk, in that it introduces an import hole for secure scripts run with -m? Not that I know of any such scripts existing as yet... If it's not the package directory, perhaps it could be a copy of whatever sys.path entry the package was found under - that wouldn't do anything but make nearby imports faster. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 338 vs PEP 328 - a limitation of the -m switch
On 6/18/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have a point about sys.path[0] being special. It could be the current directory instead of the package directory. Mightn't that be a security risk, in that it introduces an import hole for secure scripts run with -m? Not that I know of any such scripts existing as yet... That sounds like an invented use case if I ever heard of one. YAGNI, please! If it's not the package directory, perhaps it could be a copy of whatever sys.path entry the package was found under - that wouldn't do anything but make nearby imports faster. But it could theoretically affect search order for other modules. I still see nothing wrong with . After all that's also the default if you run a script using python path/to/file.py . -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 338 vs PEP 328 - a limitation of the -m switch
Guido van Rossum wrote: If it's not the package directory, perhaps it could be a copy of whatever sys.path entry the package was found under - that wouldn't do anything but make nearby imports faster. But it could theoretically affect search order for other modules. I still see nothing wrong with . After all that's also the default if you run a script using python path/to/file.py . No problem - inserting '' is what the switch does currently. A security conscious script should really be clobbering sys.path anyway so that it only contains the locations the script needs. As for the other part (requiring absolute imports), I can put a footnote in the tutorial somewhere. If anyone complains bitterly about the limitation, there's always 2.6 :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ 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
