On 30Mar2019 0913, Steve Dower wrote:
On 30Mar.2019 0747, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I like this PEP in principle, but the specific "open_for_import" name
bothers me a lot, as it implies that "importing" is the only situation
where a file will be opened for code execution.
If this part of the API were lower down the stack (e.g.
"_io.open_for_code_execution") then I think it would make more sense -
APIs like tokenize.open(), runpy.run_path(), PyRun_SimpleFile(),
shelve, etc, could use that, without having to introduce a dependency
on importlib to get access to the functionality.
It was called "open_for_exec" at one point, though I forget exactly why
we changed it. But I have no problem with moving it. Something like this?
PyImport_OpenForImport -> PyIO_OpenForExec
PyImport_SetOpenForImportHook -> PyIO_SetOpenForExecHook
importlib.util.open_for_import -> _io.open_for_exec
Or more in line with Nick's suggestion:
PyImport_OpenForImport -> PyIO_OpenExecutableCode
PyImport_SetOpenForImportHook -> PyIO_SetOpenExecutableCodeHook
importlib.util.open_for_import -> _io.open_executable_code
I dropped "For", but I don't really care that much about the name. I'd
be okay dropping either "executable" or "code" as well - I don't really
have a good sense of which will make people more likely to use this
correctly.
Looking at what we already have, perhaps putting it under
"PyFile_OpenForExecute" would make the most sense? We don't currently
have any public "PyIO" types or functions.
Bikeshedding now, but as I'm the only one really participating in it, I
think it's allowed :)
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
