Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>sys.path_importer_cache is quite an internal thing > > Whose behavior is documented in a PEP.
Correct. >> and >>most code, even import hooks, shouldn't have to deal with it. > > That doesn't make it unimportant. It's a visible change in specified > behavior between Python versions -- precisely the sort of thing that makes > people mad at us renegade cowboy Python-dev hackers changing their language > for no apparent reason. The strftime thing that recently got hashed to > death here was also an "internal thing" which "most code shouldn't have to > deal with". > > This is precisely how these kinds of problems happen. > > So, this needs to either be documented in the What's New document and PEP > 302 at a minimum, or it needs to be reverted, unless somebody wants to > bless the feature addition to fix it. I agree with you (now). ;) > I'm willing to write code that makes it PEP 302 compliant, if the release > manager will bless such an addition. But if that's not acceptable, then > somebody needs to produce the necessary documentation updates or revert the > patch. A possible third option would be to store the information "this is an invalid path" somewhere else, that is, an internal dictionary only available to import.c. I will write up docs and update the PEP in any case, if the release manager agrees. Georg _______________________________________________ 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
