On 4/20/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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).
Probably all the way. PEP 302's rationale discusses some problems that explain why this wasn't done in 2.x; perhaps those concerns can be swept in 3.0. > 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 ? Or make the module a different class instance; people already do that. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
