Brett Cannon added the comment: It will interpret its absence as None, but I would rather get the very common case of actual module instances just setting None automatically. Not having it set when None is already an accepted default value for __package__ seems inconsistent; either the lack of attribute should signify that the value is unknown for both values, or having None should, but not both. I'm advocating for the latter as it has an easier compatibility path. Plus I'm not worrying about random objects people stash into sys.modules, just real modules created from imp.new_module()/PyModule_Create(); if you muck with sys.modules you are on your own.
---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17115> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
