On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 15:31, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here are the options for handling non-compliant extension modules: > > 1. do nothing (extensions may break in ways that are hard for users to > deal with) > 2. raise ImportError if an extension without PEP 489 support is > imported in a subinterpreter > 3. add a per-interpreter isolated mode (default) that provides the > behavior of #2, where non-isolated gives #1 > > At this point my plan was go with #2, to avoid giving extension > authors the pain that comes with #1. If we went with #3, at least > during the provisional phase, it would allow extension authors to try > out their extensions in subinterpreters.
This seems sensible to me - #2 ensures that we don't get weird bugs from users trying things that we know they shouldn't be doing. I'm not sure how much advantage #3 would have, presumably extension authors wanting to "try out" subinterpreters would at some point have to mark them as importable as per #2, so why not just do that much and then see what else needs changing? But I don't know the C API for subinterpreters, so maybe there are complexities I don't understand, in which case having #3 probably makes more sense in that context. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KFOJQ3Z7AS3PCCAIOGA2KPGXXJWEYIZK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
