On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Cannon schrieb: >> I just discovered frozen packages set their __path__ simply to their >> name and not to a list as expected (http://bugs.python.org/issue4211). >> This made me think about the 'path' argument to find_module() and >> whether it can be treated as simply a hint or should always be >> seriously looked at. >> >> Take frozen modules, for instance. If the 'path' argument is meant to >> always be considered then if a frozen module is within a package a >> check should be done to make sure that the parent package is in 'path' >> somewhere. But if it is simply a hint, then 'path' should be ignored >> and whether the module can be found should depend fully on >> imp.is_frozen(). >> >> So, what do people think? Should 'path' for find_module() always be >> taken into consideration, or only when it happens to be convenient? > > At the moment I don't care about find_module for frozen modules/packages > (is someone still using these?),
Beats me. At this point I am only implementing them for backwards-compatibility, but they are exposing some inconsistencies in how various aspects of import are implemented. If I had my way they would be an optional thing that you would have to explicitly put on sys.meta_path to avoid the overhead. > but all the code I remember that > manipulates a packages __path__ would most certainly break if it > finds a string instead of a list. > Oh, definitely. That's why I filed the bug report on top of asking for feedback on this. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
