Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/20/06, in python-dev, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was hoping that for Python 3.0, we could get around to unkludge the
> > sys.path/meta_path/path_hooks/path_importer_cache big ball of hacks,
> > possibly by replacing sys.path with something a bit more intelligent than
> > a plain list.
>
> That's an excellent idea. Are there any volunteers here to help out?
> Even just listing specific use cases / scenarios that are currently
> difficult to solve right would be tremendously helpful. (I think that
> Phillip's and others' experience with setuptools might be very
> useful.)
how far would a plain
the path can contain either directory names or import handlers
modification take us ? (where import handlers are duck-typed objects
with an as-small-as-possible interface, and the handler for builtins and
frozen objects are included in the list).
being able to track modifications to sys.path would also be useful, I think.
tracking *modifications* are of course not much of a problem, but what
about
sys.path = list(stuff)
time to add support for module properties, perhaps ?
</F>
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
