What is the behaviour that was added which broke compliance? What is the benefit of the behaviour?
>From your description of fixing the problem, it seems there's some risk invovled as it's modiyfing import.c, plus adding new features. What is your recommendation? n -- On 7/26/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I posted last week about a need-for-speed patch that broke PEP 302 > compliance, and asked if it should be fixed or reverted. I got exactly one > response which said "yes, it should be fixed or reverted", which > unfortunately didn't answer my question as to which one we should do. :) > > If we don't revert it, there are two ways to fix it. One is to just change > PEP 302 so that the behavior is unbroken by definition. :) The other is > to actually go ahead and fix it by adding PathImporter and NullImporter > types to import.c, along with a factory function on sys.path_hooks to > create them. (This would've been the PEP-compliant way to implement the > need-for-speed patch.) > > So, "fix" by documentation, fix by fixing, or fix by reverting? Which > should it be? > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/nnorwitz%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
